[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7318-H7336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         REHABILITATION FOR MULTIEMPLOYER PENSIONS ACT OF 2019

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
509, I call up the bill (H.R. 397) to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to create a Pension Rehabilitation Trust Fund, to establish a 
Pension Rehabilitation Administration within the Department of the 
Treasury to make loans to multiemployer defined benefit plans, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 509, in lieu of 
the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on Ways and Means 
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-24 is adopted, and 
the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 397

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rehabilitation for 
     Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. PENSION REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION; ESTABLISHMENT; 
                   POWERS.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     of the Treasury an agency to be known as the ``Pension 
     Rehabilitation Administration''.
       (b) Director.--
       (1) Establishment of position.--There shall be at the head 
     of the Pension Rehabilitation Administration a Director, who 
     shall be appointed by the President.
       (2) Term.--
       (A) In general.--The term of office of the Director shall 
     be 5 years.
       (B) Service until appointment of successor.--An individual 
     serving as Director at the expiration of a term may continue 
     to serve until a successor is appointed.
       (3) Powers.--
       (A) Appointment of deputy directors, officers, and 
     employees.--The Director may appoint Deputy Directors, 
     officers, and employees, including attorneys, in accordance 
     with chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (B) Contracting.--
       (i) In general.--The Director may contract for financial 
     and administrative services (including those related to 
     budget and accounting, financial reporting, personnel, and 
     procurement) with the General Services Administration, or 
     such other Federal agency as the Director determines 
     appropriate, for which payment shall be made in advance, or 
     by reimbursement, from funds of the Pension Rehabilitation 
     Administration in such amounts as may be agreed upon by the 
     Director and the head of the Federal agency providing the 
     services.
       (ii) Subject to appropriations.--Contract authority under 
     clause (i) shall be effective for any fiscal year only to the 
     extent that appropriations are available for that purpose.

     SEC. 3. PENSION REHABILITATION TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 9512. PENSION REHABILITATION TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     `Pension Rehabilitation Trust Fund' (hereafter in this 
     section referred to as the `Fund'), consisting of such 
     amounts as may be appropriated or credited to the Fund as 
     provided in this section and section 9602(b).
       ``(b) Transfers to Fund.--
       ``(1) Amounts attributable to treasury bonds.--There shall 
     be credited to the Fund the amounts transferred under section 
     6 of the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 
     2019.
       ``(2) Loan interest and principal.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Director of the Pension 
     Rehabilitation Administration established under section 2 of 
     the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019 
     shall deposit in the Fund any amounts received from a plan as 
     payment of interest or principal on a loan under section 4 of 
     such Act.
       ``(B) Interest.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term 
     `interest' includes points and other similar amounts.
       ``(3) Availability of funds.--Amounts credited to or 
     deposited in the Fund shall remain available until expended.
       ``(c) Expenditures From Fund.--Amounts in the Fund are 
     available without further appropriation to the Pension 
     Rehabilitation Administration--
       ``(1) for the purpose of making the loans described in 
     section 4 of the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions 
     Act of 2019,
       ``(2) for the payment of principal and interest on 
     obligations issued under section 6 of such Act, and
       ``(3) for administrative and operating expenses of such 
     Administration.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 9512. Pension Rehabilitation Trust Fund.''.

     SEC. 4. LOAN PROGRAM FOR MULTIEMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS.

       (a) Loan Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The Pension Rehabilitation Administration 
     established under section 2 is authorized--
       (A) to make loans to multiemployer plans (as defined in 
     section 414(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) which 
     are defined benefit plans (as defined in section 414(j) of 
     such Code) and which--
       (i) are in critical and declining status (within the 
     meaning of section 432(b)(6) of such Code and section 
     305(b)(6) of the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act) 
     as of the date of the enactment of this section, or with 
     respect to which a suspension of benefits has been approved 
     under section 432(e)(9) of such Code and section 305(e)(9) of 
     such Act as of such date;
       (ii) as of such date of enactment, are in critical status 
     (within the meaning of section 432(b)(2) of such Code and 
     section 305(b)(2) of such Act), have a modified funded 
     percentage of less than 40 percent, and have a ratio of 
     active to inactive participants which is less than 2 to 5; or
       (iii) are insolvent for purposes of section 418E of such 
     Code as of such date of enactment, if they became insolvent 
     after December 16, 2014, and have not been terminated; and
       (B) subject to subsection (b), to establish appropriate 
     terms for such loans.

     For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the term ``modified 
     funded percentage'' means the percentage equal to a fraction 
     the numerator of which is current value of plan assets (as 
     defined in section 3(26) of such Act) and the denominator of 
     which is current liabilities (as defined in section 
     431(c)(6)(D) of such Code and section 304(c)(6)(D) of such 
     Act).
       (2) Consultation.--The Director of the Pension 
     Rehabilitation Administration shall consult with the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the 
     Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation before 
     making any loan under paragraph (1), and shall share with 
     such persons the application and plan information with 
     respect to each such loan.
       (3) Establishment of loan program.--
       (A) In general.--A program to make the loans authorized 
     under this section shall be established not later than 
     September 30, 2019, with guidance regarding such program to 
     be promulgated by the Director of the Pension Rehabilitation 
     Administration, in consultation with the Director of the 
     Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, and the Secretary of Labor, not later than December 
     31, 2019.
       (B) Loans authorized before program date.--Without regard 
     to whether the program under subparagraph (A) has been 
     established, a plan may apply for a loan under this section 
     before either date described in such subparagraph, and the 
     Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall approve the 
     application and make the loan before establishment of the 
     program if necessary to avoid any suspension of the accrued 
     benefits of participants.
       (b) Loan Terms.--
       (1) In general.--The terms of any loan made under 
     subsection (a) shall state that--
       (A) the plan shall make payments of interest on the loan 
     for a period of 29 years beginning on the date of the loan 
     (or 19 years in the case of a plan making the election under 
     subsection (c)(5));
       (B) final payment of interest and principal shall be due in 
     the 30th year after the date of the loan (except as provided 
     in an election under subsection (c)(5)); and
       (C) as a condition of the loan, the plan sponsor stipulates 
     that--
       (i) except as provided in clause (ii), the plan will not 
     increase benefits, allow any employer participating in the 
     plan to reduce its contributions, or accept any collective 
     bargaining agreement which provides for reduced contribution 
     rates, during the 30-year period described in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B);
       (ii) in the case of a plan with respect to which a 
     suspension of benefits has been approved under section 
     432(e)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section 
     305(e)(9) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
     1974, or under section 418E of such Code, before the loan, 
     the plan will reinstate the suspended benefits (or will not 
     carry out any suspension which has been approved but not yet 
     implemented);
       (iii) the plan sponsor will comply with the requirements of 
     section 6059A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       (iv) the plan will continue to pay all premiums due under 
     section 4007 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974; and

[[Page H7319]]

       (v) the plan and plan administrator will meet such other 
     requirements as the Director of the Pension Rehabilitation 
     Administration provides in the loan terms.

     The terms of the loan shall not make reference to whether the 
     plan is receiving financial assistance under section 4261(d) 
     of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1431(d)) or to any adjustment of the loan amount under 
     subsection (d)(2)(A)(ii).
       (2) Interest rate.--Except as provided in the second 
     sentence of this paragraph and subsection (c)(5), loans made 
     under subsection (a) shall have as low an interest rate as is 
     feasible. Such rate shall be determined by the Pension 
     Rehabilitation Administration and shall--
       (A) not be lower than the rate of interest on 30-year 
     Treasury securities on the first day of the calendar year in 
     which the loan is issued, and
       (B) not exceed the greater of--
       (i) a rate 0.2 percentage points higher than such rate of 
     interest on such date, or
       (ii) the rate necessary to collect revenues sufficient to 
     administer the program under this section.
       (c) Loan Application.--
       (1) In general.--In applying for a loan under subsection 
     (a), the plan sponsor shall--
       (A) demonstrate that, except as provided in subparagraph 
     (C)--
       (i) the loan will enable the plan to avoid insolvency for 
     at least the 30-year period described in subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B) of subsection (b)(1) or, in the case of a plan which 
     is already insolvent, to emerge from insolvency within and 
     avoid insolvency for the remainder of such period; and
       (ii) the plan is reasonably expected to be able to pay 
     benefits and the interest on the loan during such period and 
     to accumulate sufficient funds to repay the principal when 
     due;
       (B) provide the plan's most recently filed Form 5500 as of 
     the date of application and any other information necessary 
     to determine the loan amount under subsection (d);
       (C) stipulate whether the plan is also applying for 
     financial assistance under section 4261(d) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1431(d)) in 
     combination with the loan to enable the plan to avoid 
     insolvency and to pay benefits, or is already receiving such 
     financial assistance as a result of a previous application;
       (D) state in what manner the loan proceeds will be invested 
     pursuant to subsection (d), the person from whom any annuity 
     contracts under such subsection will be purchased, and the 
     person who will be the investment manager for any portfolio 
     implemented under such subsection; and
       (E) include such other information and certifications as 
     the Director of the Pension Rehabilitation Administration 
     shall require.
       (2) Standard for accepting actuarial and plan sponsor 
     determinations and demonstrations in the application.--In 
     evaluating the plan sponsor's application, the Director of 
     the Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall accept the 
     determinations and demonstrations in the application unless 
     the Director, in consultation with the Director of the 
     Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, and the Secretary of Labor, concludes that any such 
     determinations or demonstrations in the application (or any 
     underlying assumptions) are unreasonable or are inconsistent 
     with any rules issued by the Director pursuant to subsection 
     (g).
       (3) Required actions; deemed approval.--The Director of the 
     Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall approve or deny 
     any application under this subsection within 90 days after 
     the submission of such application. An application shall be 
     deemed approved unless, within such 90 days, the Director 
     notifies the plan sponsor of the denial of such application 
     and the reasons for such denial. Any approval or denial of an 
     application by the Director of the Pension Rehabilitation 
     Administration shall be treated as a final agency action for 
     purposes of section 704 of title 5, United States Code. The 
     Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall make the loan 
     pursuant to any application promptly after the approval of 
     such application.
       (4) Certain plans required to apply.--The plan sponsor of 
     any plan with respect to which a suspension of benefits has 
     been approved under section 432(e)(9) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 and section 305(e)(9) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 or under section 418E of such 
     Code, before the date of the enactment of this Act shall 
     apply for a loan under this section. The Director of the 
     Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall provide for such 
     plan sponsors to use the simplified application under 
     subsection (d)(2)(B).
       (5) Incentive for early repayment.--The plan sponsor may 
     elect at the time of the application to repay the loan 
     principal, along with the remaining interest, at least as 
     rapidly as equal installments over the 10-year period 
     beginning with the 21st year after the date of the loan. In 
     the case of a plan making this election, the interest on the 
     loan shall be reduced by 0.5 percentage points.
       (d) Loan Amount and Use.--
       (1) Amount of loan.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B) and 
     paragraph (2), the amount of any loan under subsection (a) 
     shall be, as demonstrated by the plan sponsor on the 
     application under subsection (c), the amount needed to 
     purchase annuity contracts or to implement a portfolio 
     described in paragraph (3)(C) (or a combination of the two) 
     sufficient to provide benefits of participants and 
     beneficiaries of the plan in pay status, and terminated 
     vested benefits, at the time the loan is made.
       (B) Plans with suspended benefits.--In the case of a plan 
     with respect to which a suspension of benefits has been 
     approved under section 432(e)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 and section 305(e)(9) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1085(e)(9)) or under 
     section 418E of such Code--
       (i) the suspension of benefits shall not be taken into 
     account in applying subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) the loan amount shall be the amount sufficient to 
     provide benefits of participants and beneficiaries of the 
     plan in pay status and terminated vested benefits at the time 
     the loan is made, determined without regard to the 
     suspension, including retroactive payment of benefits which 
     would otherwise have been payable during the period of the 
     suspension.
       (2) Coordination with pbgc financial assistance.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of a plan which is also 
     applying for financial assistance under section 4261(d) of 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1431(d))--
       (i) the plan sponsor shall submit the loan application and 
     the application for financial assistance jointly to the 
     Pension Rehabilitation Administration and the Pension Benefit 
     Guaranty Corporation with the information necessary to 
     determine the eligibility for and amount of the loan under 
     this section and the financial assistance under section 
     4261(d) of such Act; and
       (ii) if such financial assistance is granted, the amount of 
     the loan under subsection (a) shall not exceed an amount 
     equal to the excess of--

       (I) the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A) or 
     (1)(B)(ii) (whichever is applicable); over
       (II) the amount of such financial assistance.

       (B) Plans already receiving pbgc assistance.--The Director 
     of the Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall provide 
     for a simplified application for the loan under this section 
     which may be used by an insolvent plan which has not been 
     terminated and which is already receiving financial 
     assistance (other than under section 4261(d) of such Act) 
     from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation at the time of 
     the application for the loan under this section.
       (3) Use of loan funds.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 432(f)(2)(A)(ii) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section 
     305(f)(2)(A)(ii) of such Act, the loan received under 
     subsection (a) shall only be used to purchase annuity 
     contracts which meet the requirements of subparagraph (B) or 
     to implement a portfolio described in subparagraph (C) (or a 
     combination of the two) to provide the benefits described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (B) Annuity contract requirements.--The annuity contracts 
     purchased under subparagraph (A) shall be issued by an 
     insurance company which is licensed to do business under the 
     laws of any State and which is rated A or better by a 
     nationally recognized statistical rating organization, and 
     the purchase of such contracts shall meet all applicable 
     fiduciary standards under the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974.
       (C) Portfolio.--
       (i) In general.--A portfolio described in this subparagraph 
     is--

       (I) a cash matching portfolio or duration matching 
     portfolio consisting of investment grade (as rated by a 
     nationally recognized statistical rating organization) fixed 
     income investments, including United States dollar-
     denominated public or private debt obligations issued or 
     guaranteed by the United States or a foreign issuer, which 
     are tradeable in United States currency and are issued at 
     fixed or zero coupon rates; or
       (II) any other portfolio prescribed by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury in regulations which has a similar risk profile to 
     the portfolios described in subclause (I) and is equally 
     protective of the interests of participants and 
     beneficiaries.

     Once implemented, such a portfolio shall be maintained until 
     all liabilities to participants and beneficiaries in pay 
     status, and terminated vested participants, at the time of 
     the loan are satisfied.
       (ii) Fiduciary duty.--Any investment manager of a portfolio 
     under this subparagraph shall acknowledge in writing that 
     such person is a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the plan.
       (iii) Treatment of participants and beneficiaries.--
     Participants and beneficiaries covered by a portfolio under 
     this subparagraph shall continue to be treated as 
     participants and beneficiaries of the plan, including for 
     purposes of title IV of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974.
       (D) Accounting.--
       (i) In general.--Annuity contracts purchased and portfolios 
     implemented under this paragraph shall be used solely to 
     provide the benefits described in paragraph (1) until all 
     such benefits have been paid and shall be accounted for 
     separately from the other assets of the plan.
       (ii) Oversight of non-annuity investments.--

       (I) In general.--Any portfolio implemented under this 
     paragraph shall be subject to oversight by the Pension 
     Rehabilitation Administration, including a mandatory 
     triennial review of the adequacy of the portfolio to provide 
     the benefits described in paragraph (1) and approval (to be 
     provided within a reasonable period of time) of any decision 
     by the plan sponsor to change the investment manager of the 
     portfolio.
       (II) Remedial action.--If the oversight under subclause (I) 
     determines an inadequacy, the plan sponsor shall take 
     remedial action to ensure that the inadequacy will be cured 
     within 2 years of such determination.

       (E) Ombudsperson.--The Participant and Plan Sponsor 
     Advocate established under section 4004 of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 shall act as 
     ombudsperson for

[[Page H7320]]

     participants and beneficiaries on behalf of whom annuity 
     contracts are purchased or who are covered by a portfolio 
     under this paragraph.
       (e) Collection of Repayment.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (f), the Pension Rehabilitation Administration 
     shall make every effort to collect repayment of loans under 
     this section in accordance with section 3711 of title 31, 
     United States Code.
       (f) Loan Default.--If a plan is unable to make any payment 
     on a loan under this section when due, the Pension 
     Rehabilitation Administration shall negotiate with the plan 
     sponsor revised terms for repayment (including installment 
     payments over a reasonable period or forgiveness of a portion 
     of the loan principal), but only to the extent necessary to 
     avoid insolvency in the subsequent 18 months.
       (g) Authority to Issue Rules, etc.--The Director of the 
     Pension Rehabilitation Administration, in consultation with 
     the Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Labor, is 
     authorized to issue rules regarding the form, content, and 
     process of applications for loans under this section, 
     actuarial standards and assumptions to be used in making 
     estimates and projections for purposes of such applications, 
     and assumptions regarding interest rates, mortality, and 
     distributions with respect to a portfolio described in 
     subsection (d)(3)(C).
       (h) Report to Congress on Status of Certain Plans With 
     Loans.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Director of the 
     Pension Rehabilitation Administration shall submit to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education 
     and Labor of the House of Representatives, and the Committee 
     on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
     Pensions of the Senate, a report identifying any plan that--
       (1) has failed to make any scheduled payment on a loan 
     under this section,
       (2) has negotiated revised terms for repayment of such loan 
     (including any installment payments or forgiveness of a 
     portion of the loan principal), or
       (3) the Director has determined is no longer reasonably 
     expected to be able to--
       (A) pay benefits and the interest on the loan, or
       (B) accumulate sufficient funds to repay the principal when 
     due.

     Such report shall include the details of any such failure, 
     revised terms, or determination, as the case may be.
       (i) Coordination With Taxation of Unrelated Business 
     Income.--Subparagraph (A) of section 514(c)(6) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii)(II) 
     and inserting ``, or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) indebtedness with respect to a multiemployer plan 
     under a loan made by the Pension Rehabilitation 
     Administration pursuant to section 4 of the Rehabilitation 
     for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019.''.

     SEC. 5. COORDINATION WITH WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY AND FUNDING 
                   RULES.

       (a) Amendment to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Section 
     432 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Special Rules for Plans Receiving Pension 
     Rehabilitation Loans.--
       ``(1) Determination of withdrawal liability.--
       ``(A) In general.--If any employer participating in a plan 
     at the time the plan receives a loan under section 4(a) of 
     the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019 
     withdraws from the plan before the end of the 30-year period 
     beginning on the date of the loan, the withdrawal liability 
     of such employer shall be determined under the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974--
       ``(i) by applying section 4219(c)(1)(D) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 as if the plan were 
     terminating by the withdrawal of every employer from the 
     plan, and
       ``(ii) by determining the value of nonforfeitable benefits 
     under the plan at the time of the deemed termination by using 
     the interest assumptions prescribed for purposes of section 
     4044 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 
     as prescribed in the regulations under section 4281 of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in the case 
     of such a mass withdrawal.
       ``(B) Annuity contracts and investment portfolios purchased 
     with loan funds.--Annuity contracts purchased and portfolios 
     implemented under section 4(d)(3) of the Rehabilitation for 
     Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019 shall not be taken into 
     account as plan assets in determining the withdrawal 
     liability of any employer under subparagraph (A), but the 
     amount equal to the greater of--
       ``(i) the benefits provided under such contracts or 
     portfolios to participants and beneficiaries, or
       ``(ii) the remaining payments due on the loan under section 
     4(a) of such Act,

     shall be taken into account as unfunded vested benefits in 
     determining such withdrawal liability.
       ``(2) Coordination with funding requirements.--In the case 
     of a plan which receives a loan under section 4(a) of the 
     Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019--
       ``(A) annuity contracts purchased and portfolios 
     implemented under section 4(d)(3) of such Act, and the 
     benefits provided to participants and beneficiaries under 
     such contracts or portfolios, shall not be taken into account 
     in determining minimum required contributions under section 
     412,
       ``(B) payments on the interest and principal under the 
     loan, and any benefits owed in excess of those provided under 
     such contracts or portfolios, shall be taken into account as 
     liabilities for purposes of such section, and
       ``(C) if such a portfolio is projected due to unfavorable 
     investment or actuarial experience to be unable to fully 
     satisfy the liabilities which it covers, the amount of the 
     liabilities projected to be unsatisfied shall be taken into 
     account as liabilities for purposes of such section.''.
       (b) Amendment to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
     1974.--Section 305 of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1085) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Special Rules for Plans Receiving Pension 
     Rehabilitation Loans.--
       ``(1) Determination of withdrawal liability.--
       ``(A) In general.--If any employer participating in a plan 
     at the time the plan receives a loan under section 4(a) of 
     the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019 
     withdraws from the plan before the end of the 30-year period 
     beginning on the date of the loan, the withdrawal liability 
     of such employer shall be determined--
       ``(i) by applying section 4219(c)(1)(D) as if the plan were 
     terminating by the withdrawal of every employer from the 
     plan, and
       ``(ii) by determining the value of nonforfeitable benefits 
     under the plan at the time of the deemed termination by using 
     the interest assumptions prescribed for purposes of section 
     4044, as prescribed in the regulations under section 4281 in 
     the case of such a mass withdrawal.
       ``(B) Annuity contracts and investment portfolios purchased 
     with loan funds.--Annuity contracts purchased and portfolios 
     implemented under section 4(d)(3) of the Rehabilitation for 
     Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019 shall not be taken into 
     account in determining the withdrawal liability of any 
     employer under subparagraph (A), but the amount equal to the 
     greater of--
       ``(i) the benefits provided under such contracts or 
     portfolios to participants and beneficiaries, or
       ``(ii) the remaining payments due on the loan under section 
     4(a) of such Act,

     shall be taken into account as unfunded vested benefits in 
     determining such withdrawal liability.
       ``(2) Coordination with funding requirements.--In the case 
     of a plan which receives a loan under section 4(a) of the 
     Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019--
       ``(A) annuity contracts purchased and portfolios 
     implemented under section 4(d)(3) of such Act, and the 
     benefits provided to participants and beneficiaries under 
     such contracts or portfolios, shall not be taken into account 
     in determining minimum required contributions under section 
     302,
       ``(B) payments on the interest and principal under the 
     loan, and any benefits owed in excess of those provided under 
     such contracts or portfolios, shall be taken into account as 
     liabilities for purposes of such section, and
       ``(C) if such a portfolio is projected due to unfavorable 
     investment or actuarial experience to be unable to fully 
     satisfy the liabilities which it covers, the amount of the 
     liabilities projected to be unsatisfied shall be taken into 
     account as liabilities for purposes of such section.''.

     SEC. 6. ISSUANCE OF TREASURY BONDS.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time 
     transfer from the general fund of the Treasury to the Pension 
     Rehabilitation Trust Fund established under section 9512 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 such amounts as are 
     necessary to fund the loan program under section 4 of this 
     Act, including from proceeds from the Secretary's issuance of 
     obligations under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code.

     SEC. 7. REPORTS OF PLANS RECEIVING PENSION REHABILITATION 
                   LOANS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart E of part III of subchapter A of 
     chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6059A. REPORTS OF PLANS RECEIVING PENSION 
                   REHABILITATION LOANS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of a plan receiving a loan 
     under section 4(a) of the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer 
     Pensions Act of 2019, with respect to the first plan year 
     beginning after the date of the loan and each of the 29 
     succeeding plan years, not later than the 90th day of each 
     such plan year the plan sponsor shall file with the Secretary 
     a report (including appropriate documentation and actuarial 
     certifications from the plan actuary, as required by the 
     Secretary) that contains--
       ``(1) the funded percentage (as defined in section 
     432(j)(2)) as of the first day of such plan year, and the 
     underlying actuarial value of assets (determined with regard, 
     and without regard, to annuity contracts purchased and 
     portfolios implemented with proceeds of such loan) and 
     liabilities (including any amounts due with respect to such 
     loan) taken into account in determining such percentage,
       ``(2) the market value of the assets of the plan 
     (determined as provided in paragraph (1)) as of the last day 
     of the plan year preceding such plan year,
       ``(3) the total value of all contributions made by 
     employers and employees during the plan year preceding such 
     plan year,
       ``(4) the total value of all benefits paid during the plan 
     year preceding such plan year,
       ``(5) cash flow projections for such plan year and the 9 
     succeeding plan years, and the assumptions used in making 
     such projections,
       ``(6) funding standard account projections for such plan 
     year and the 9 succeeding plan years, and the assumptions 
     relied upon in making such projections,

[[Page H7321]]

       ``(7) the total value of all investment gains or losses 
     during the plan year preceding such plan year,
       ``(8) any significant reduction in the number of active 
     participants during the plan year preceding such plan year, 
     and the reason for such reduction,
       ``(9) a list of employers that withdrew from the plan in 
     the plan year preceding such plan year, and the resulting 
     reduction in contributions,
       ``(10) a list of employers that paid withdrawal liability 
     to the plan during the plan year preceding such plan year 
     and, for each employer, a total assessment of the withdrawal 
     liability paid, the annual payment amount, and the number of 
     years remaining in the payment schedule with respect to such 
     withdrawal liability,
       ``(11) any material changes to benefits, accrual rates, or 
     contribution rates during the plan year preceding such plan 
     year, and whether such changes relate to the terms of the 
     loan,
       ``(12) details regarding any funding improvement plan or 
     rehabilitation plan and updates to such plan,
       ``(13) the number of participants during the plan year 
     preceding such plan year who are active participants, the 
     number of participants and beneficiaries in pay status, and 
     the number of terminated vested participants and 
     beneficiaries,
       ``(14) the amount of any financial assistance received 
     under section 4261 of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act of 1974 to pay benefits during the preceding plan year, 
     and the total amount of such financial assistance received 
     for all preceding years,
       ``(15) the information contained on the most recent annual 
     funding notice submitted by the plan under section 101(f) of 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
       ``(16) the information contained on the most recent annual 
     return under section 6058 and actuarial report under section 
     6059 of the plan, and
       ``(17) copies of the plan document and amendments, other 
     retirement benefit or ancillary benefit plans relating to the 
     plan and contribution obligations under such plans, a 
     breakdown of administrative expenses of the plan, participant 
     census data and distribution of benefits, the most recent 
     actuarial valuation report as of the plan year, copies of 
     collective bargaining agreements, and financial reports, and 
     such other information as the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Director of the Pension Rehabilitation Administration, 
     may require.
       ``(b) Electronic Submission.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall be submitted electronically.
       ``(c) Information Sharing.--The Secretary shall share the 
     information in the report under subsection (a) with the 
     Secretary of Labor and the Director of the Pension Benefit 
     Guaranty Corporation.
       ``(d) Report to Participants, Beneficiaries, and 
     Employers.--Each plan sponsor required to file a report under 
     subsection (a) shall, before the expiration of the time 
     prescribed for the filing of such report, also provide a 
     summary (written in a manner so as to be understood by the 
     average plan participant) of the information in such report 
     to participants and beneficiaries in the plan and to each 
     employer with an obligation to contribute to the plan.''.
       (b) Penalty.--Subsection (e) of section 6652 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, 6059A (relating to reports of plans 
     receiving pension rehabilitation loans)'' after ``deferred 
     compensation)'';
       (2) by inserting ``($100 in the case of failures under 
     section 6059A)'' after ``$25''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of a 
     failure with respect to section 6059A, the amount imposed 
     under this subsection shall not be paid from the assets of 
     the plan.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     E of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 6059A. Reports of plans receiving pension rehabilitation 
              loans.''.

     SEC. 8. PBGC FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 4261 of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1431) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) The plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan--
       ``(A) which is in critical and declining status (within the 
     meaning of section 305(b)(6)) as of the date of the enactment 
     of this subsection, or with respect to which a suspension of 
     benefits has been approved under section 305(e)(9) as of such 
     date;
       ``(B) which, as of such date of enactment, is in critical 
     status (within the meaning of section 305(b)(2)), has a 
     modified funded percentage of less than 40 percent (as 
     defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation for 
     Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019), and has a ratio of 
     active to inactive participants which is less than 2 to 5; or
       ``(C) which is insolvent for purposes of section 418E of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as of such date of 
     enactment, if the plan became insolvent after December 16, 
     2014, and has not been terminated;

     and which is applying for a loan under section 4(a) of the 
     Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019 may 
     also apply to the corporation for financial assistance under 
     this subsection, by jointly submitting such applications in 
     accordance with section 4(d)(2) of such Act. The application 
     for financial assistance under this subsection shall 
     demonstrate, based on projections by the plan actuary, that 
     after the receipt of the anticipated loan amount under 
     section 4(a) of such Act, the plan will still become (or 
     remain) insolvent within the 30-year period beginning on the 
     date of the loan.
       ``(2) In reviewing an application under paragraph (1), the 
     corporation shall review the determinations and 
     demonstrations submitted with the loan application under 
     section 4(c) of the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions 
     Act of 2019 and provide guidance regarding such 
     determinations and demonstrations prior to approving any 
     application for financial assistance under this subsection. 
     The corporation may deny any application if any such 
     determinations or demonstrations (or any underlying 
     assumptions) are unreasonable, or inconsistent with rules 
     issued by the corporation, and the plan and the corporation 
     are unable to reach agreement on such determinations or 
     demonstrations. The corporation shall prescribe any such 
     rules or guidance not later than December 31, 2019.
       ``(3)(A) In the case of a plan described in paragraph 
     (1)(A) or (1)(B), the total financial assistance provided 
     under this subsection shall be an amount equal to the 
     smallest portion of the loan amount with respect to the plan 
     under paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B)(ii) of section 4(d) of the 
     Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019 
     (determined without regard to paragraph (2) thereof) that, if 
     provided as financial assistance under this subsection 
     instead of a loan, would allow the plan to avoid the 
     projected insolvency.
       ``(B) Such amount shall not exceed the present value of the 
     maximum guaranteed benefit with respect to all participants 
     and beneficiaries of the plan under sections 4022A and 4022B. 
     For purposes of the preceding sentence, the present value of 
     the maximum guaranteed benefit amount shall be determined by 
     disregarding any loan available from the Pension 
     Rehabilitation Administration and shall be determined as if 
     the plan were insolvent on the date of the application, and 
     the present value of the maximum guaranteed benefit amount 
     with respect to such participants and beneficiaries may be 
     calculated in the aggregate, rather than by reference to the 
     benefit of each such participant or beneficiary.

       ``(4) In the case of a plan described in paragraph (1)(C), 
     the financial assistance provided pursuant to such 
     application under this subsection shall be the present value 
     of the amount (determined by the plan actuary and submitted 
     on the application) that, if such amount were paid by the 
     corporation in combination with the loan and any other 
     assistance being provided to the plan by the corporation at 
     the time of the application, would enable the plan to emerge 
     from insolvency and avoid any other insolvency projected 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(5)(A)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if the 
     corporation determines at the time of approval, or at the 
     beginning of any plan year beginning thereafter, that the 
     plan's 5-year expenditure projection (determined without 
     regard to loan payments described in clause (iii)(III)) 
     exceeds the fair market value of the plan's assets, the 
     corporation shall (subject to the total amount of financial 
     assistance approved under this subsection) provide such 
     assistance in an amount equal to the lesser of--
       ``(I) the amount by which the plan's 5-year expenditure 
     projection exceeds such fair market value, or
       ``(II) the plan's expected expenditures for the plan year.
       ``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `5-year 
     expenditure projection' means, with respect to any plan for a 
     plan year, an amount equal to 500 percent of the plan's 
     expected expenditures for the plan year.
       ``(iii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term 
     `expected expenditures' means, with respect to any plan for a 
     plan year, an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(I) expected benefit payments for the plan year,
       ``(II) expected administrative expense payments for the 
     plan year, plus
       ``(III) payments on the loan scheduled during the plan year 
     pursuant to the terms of the loan under section 4(b) of the 
     Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019.
       ``(iv) For purposes of this subparagraph, in the case of 
     any plan year during which a plan is approved for a loan 
     under section 4 of such Act, but has not yet received the 
     proceeds, such proceeds shall be included in determining the 
     fair market value of the plan's assets for the plan year. The 
     preceding sentence shall not apply in the case of any plan 
     that for the plan year beginning in 2015 was certified 
     pursuant to section 305(b)(3) as being in critical and 
     declining status, and had more than 300,000 participants.
       ``(B) The financial assistance under this subsection shall 
     be provided in a lump sum if the plan sponsor demonstrates in 
     the application, and the corporation determines, that such a 
     lump sum payment is necessary for the plan to avoid the 
     insolvency to which the application relates. In the case of a 
     plan described in paragraph (1)(C), such lump sum shall be 
     provided not later than December 31, 2020.
       ``(6) Subsections (b) and (c) shall apply to financial 
     assistance under this subsection as if it were provided under 
     subsection (a), except that the terms for repayment under 
     subsection (b)(2) shall not require the financial assistance 
     to be repaid before the date on which the loan under section 
     4(a) of the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 
     2019 is repaid in full.

[[Page H7322]]

       ``(7) The corporation may forgo repayment of the financial 
     assistance provided under this subsection if necessary to 
     avoid any suspension of the accrued benefits of 
     participants.''.
       (b) Appropriations.--There is appropriated to the Director 
     of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation such sums as may 
     be necessary for each fiscal year to provide the financial 
     assistance described in section 4261(d) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1431(d)) 
     (as added by this section) (including necessary 
     administrative and operating expenses relating to such 
     assistance).

     SEC. 9. MODIFICATION OF REQUIRED DISTRIBUTION RULES FOR 
                   DESIGNATED BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) Modification of Rules Where Employee Dies Before Entire 
     Distribution.--
       (1) In general.--Section 401(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(H) Special rules for certain defined contribution 
     plans.--In the case of a defined contribution plan, if an 
     employee dies before the distribution of the employee's 
     entire interest--
       ``(i) In general.--Except in the case of a beneficiary who 
     is not a designated beneficiary, subparagraph (B)(ii)--

       ``(I) shall be applied by substituting `10 years' for `5 
     years', and
       ``(II) shall apply whether or not distributions of the 
     employee's interests have begun in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A).

       ``(ii) Exception only for eligible designated 
     beneficiaries.--Subparagraph (B)(iii) shall apply only in the 
     case of an eligible designated beneficiary.
       ``(iii) Rules upon death of eligible designated 
     beneficiary.--If an eligible designated beneficiary dies 
     before the portion of the employee's interest to which this 
     subparagraph applies is entirely distributed, the exception 
     under clause (iii) shall not apply to any beneficiary of such 
     eligible designated beneficiary and the remainder of such 
     portion shall be distributed within 10 years after the death 
     of such eligible designated beneficiary.
       ``(iv) Application to certain eligible retirement plans.--
     For purposes of applying the provisions of this subparagraph 
     in determining amounts required to be distributed pursuant to 
     this paragraph, all eligible retirement plans (as defined in 
     section 402(c)(8)(B), other than a defined benefit plan 
     described in clause (iv) or (v) thereof or a qualified trust 
     which is a part of a defined benefit plan) shall be treated 
     as a defined contribution plan.''.
       (2) Definition of eligible designated beneficiary.--Section 
     401(a)(9)(E) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(E) Definitions and rules relating to designated 
     beneficiary.--For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) Designated beneficiary.--The term `designated 
     beneficiary' means any individual designated as a beneficiary 
     by the employee.
       ``(ii) Eligible designated beneficiary.--The term `eligible 
     designated beneficiary' means, with respect to any employee, 
     any designated beneficiary who is--

       ``(I) the surviving spouse of the employee,
       ``(II) subject to clause (iii), a child of the employee who 
     has not reached majority (within the meaning of subparagraph 
     (F)),
       ``(III) disabled (within the meaning of section 72(m)(7)),
       ``(IV) a chronically ill individual (within the meaning of 
     section 7702B(c)(2), except that the requirements of 
     subparagraph (A)(i) thereof shall only be treated as met if 
     there is a certification that, as of such date, the period of 
     inability described in such subparagraph with respect to the 
     individual is an indefinite one which is reasonably expected 
     to be lengthy in nature), or
       ``(V) an individual not described in any of the preceding 
     subclauses who is not more than 10 years younger than the 
     employee.

       ``(iii) Special rule for children.--Subject to subparagraph 
     (F), an individual described in clause (ii)(II) shall cease 
     to be an eligible designated beneficiary as of the date the 
     individual reaches majority and any remainder of the portion 
     of the individual's interest to which subparagraph (H)(ii) 
     applies shall be distributed within 10 years after such date.
       ``(iv) Time for determination of eligible designated 
     beneficiary.--The determination of whether a designated 
     beneficiary is an eligible designated beneficiary shall be 
     made as of the date of death of the employee.''.
       (3) Effective dates.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in this paragraph and 
     paragraphs (4) and (5), the amendments made by this 
     subsection shall apply to distributions with respect to 
     employees who die after December 31, 2019.
       (B) Collective bargaining exception.--In the case of a plan 
     maintained pursuant to 1 or more collective bargaining 
     agreements between employee representatives and 1 or more 
     employers ratified before the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the amendments made by this subsection shall apply to 
     distributions with respect to employees who die in calendar 
     years beginning after the earlier of--
       (i) the later of--

       (I) the date on which the last of such collective 
     bargaining agreements terminates (determined without regard 
     to any extension thereof agreed to on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act), or
       (II) December 31, 2019, or

       (ii) December 31, 2021

     .For purposes of clause (i)(I), any plan amendment made 
     pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement relating to the 
     plan which amends the plan solely to conform to any 
     requirement added by this section shall not be treated as a 
     termination of such collective bargaining agreement.
       (C) Governmental plans.--In the case of a governmental plan 
     (as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986), subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting 
     ``December 31, 2021'' for ``December 31, 2019''.
       (4) Exception for certain existing annuity contracts.--
       (A) In general.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall not apply to a qualified annuity which is a binding 
     annuity contract in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act and at all times thereafter.
       (B) Qualified annuity.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     term ``qualified annuity'' means, with respect to an 
     employee, an annuity--
       (i) which is a commercial annuity (as defined in section 
     3405(e)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986);
       (ii) under which the annuity payments are made over the 
     life of the employee or over the joint lives of such employee 
     and a designated beneficiary (or over a period not extending 
     beyond the life expectancy of such employee or the joint life 
     expectancy of such employee and a designated beneficiary) in 
     accordance with the regulations described in section 
     401(a)(9)(A)(ii) of such Code (as in effect before such 
     amendments) and which meets the other requirements of section 
     401(a)(9) of such Code (as so in effect) with respect to such 
     payments; and
       (iii) with respect to which--

       (I) annuity payments to the employee have begun before the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and the employee has made an 
     irrevocable election before such date as to the method and 
     amount of the annuity payments to the employee or any 
     designated beneficiaries; or
       (II) if subclause (I) does not apply, the employee has made 
     an irrevocable election before the date of enactment of this 
     Act as to the method and amount of the annuity payments to 
     the employee or any designated beneficiaries.

       (5) Exception for certain beneficiaries.--
       (A) In general.--If an employee dies before the effective 
     date, then, in applying the amendments made by this 
     subsection to such employee's designated beneficiary who dies 
     after such date--
       (i) such amendments shall apply to any beneficiary of such 
     designated beneficiary; and
       (ii) the designated beneficiary shall be treated as an 
     eligible designated beneficiary for purposes of applying 
     section 401(a)(9)(H)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (as in effect after such amendments).
       (B) Effective date.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     term ``effective date'' means the first day of the first 
     calendar year to which the amendments made by this subsection 
     apply to a plan with respect to employees dying on or after 
     such date.
       (b) Provisions Relating to Plan Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--If this subsection applies to any plan 
     amendment--
       (A) such plan shall be treated as being operated in 
     accordance with the terms of the plan during the period 
     described in paragraph (2)(B)(i); and
       (B) except as provided by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     such plan shall not fail to meet the requirements of section 
     411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section 
     204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
     by reason of such amendment.
       (2) Amendments to which subsection applies.--
       (A) In general.--This subsection shall apply to any 
     amendment to any plan or which is made--
       (i) pursuant to any amendment made by this section or 
     pursuant to any regulation issued by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury under this section or such amendments; and
       (ii) on or before the last day of the first plan year 
     beginning after December 31, 2021, or such later date as the 
     Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.
     In the case of a governmental or collectively bargained plan 
     to which subparagraph (B) or (C) of subsection (a)(4) 
     applies, clause (ii) shall be applied by substituting the 
     date which is 2 years after the date otherwise applied under 
     such clause.
       (B) Conditions.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     amendment unless--
       (i) during the period--

       (I) beginning on the date the legislative or regulatory 
     amendment described in paragraph (1)(A) takes effect (or in 
     the case of a plan amendment not required by such legislative 
     or regulatory amendment, the effective date specified by the 
     plan); and
       (II) ending on the date described in subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     (or, if earlier, the date the plan amendment is adopted),

     the plan is operated as if such plan amendment were in 
     effect; and
       (ii) such plan amendment applies retroactively for such 
     period.

     SEC. 10. INCREASE IN PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE.

       (a) In General.--The second sentence of section 6651(a) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by the Taxpayer 
     First Act, is amended by striking ``$330'' and inserting 
     ``$435''.

[[Page H7323]]

       (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 6651(j)(1) of such Code, 
     as amended by such Act, is amended by striking ``$330'' and 
     inserting ``$435''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to returns the due date for which (including 
     extensions) is after December 31, 2019.

     SEC. 11. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO FILE RETIREMENT 
                   PLAN RETURNS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 6652 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25'' and inserting ``$250''; and
       (2) by striking ``$15,000'' and inserting ``$150,000''.
       (b) Annual Registration Statement and Notification of 
     Changes.--Subsection (d) of section 6652 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$1'' both places it appears in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) and inserting ``$10'';
       (2) by striking ``$5,000'' in paragraph (1) and inserting 
     ``$50,000''; and
       (3) by striking ``$1,000'' in paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``$10,000''.
       (c) Failure To Provide Notice.--Subsection (h) of section 
     6652 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$10'' and inserting ``$100''; and
       (2) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$50,000''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to returns, statements, and notifications 
     required to be filed, and notices required to be provided, 
     after December 31, 2019.

     SEC. 12. INCREASE INFORMATION SHARING TO ADMINISTER EXCISE 
                   TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Section 6103(o) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Taxes imposed by section 4481.--Returns and return 
     information with respect to taxes imposed by section 4481 
     shall be open to inspection by or disclosure to officers and 
     employees of United States Customs and Border Protection of 
     the Department of Homeland Security whose official duties 
     require such inspection or disclosure for purposes of 
     administering such section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraph (4) of section 
     6103(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     striking ``or (o)(1)(A)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``, (o)(1)(A), or (o)(3)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor and the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order 
to consider the further amendment printed in part A of House Report 
116-178, if offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall 
be considered read, shall be separately debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of 
the question.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 397, the 
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Speaker, over the last few decades, construction workers, truck 
drivers, industrial bakers, coal miners, and other hardworking 
Americans, some of whom are here today, did everything they could to 
prepare themselves and their families for a secure retirement. Year 
after year, these workers negotiated with their employers to defer 
wages in return for a promise of a pension that would allow them to 
retire with dignity.
  Now, through no fault of their own, the pensions they earned over 
their lifetimes and the retirement security they were promised are in 
jeopardy. Today, approximately 130 multiemployer pension plans, 
covering about 1 million participants, are in severe financial 
distress. Several plans are facing insolvency in the next few years, 
while many others are projected to fail over the next 20 years.
  Making matters worse, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which 
insures these pension plans, is projected to run out of money by 2025 
as large plans face insolvency. If multiemployer pension plans go broke 
and the PBGC's multiemployer program collapses, there will be 
catastrophic consequences to retirees, workers, businesses, and 
taxpayers.
  The Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act, commonly known as 
the Butch Lewis Act, is a bipartisan solution to avert this financial 
disaster, and it will actually end up saving taxpayers billions of 
dollars.
  According to one estimate, a multiemployer pension system collapse 
would cost the Federal Government at least $170 billion over 10 years, 
and possibly $400 billion over 30 years, due to lost tax revenue and 
increased reliance on social programs.
  According to the CBO, to solve the problem, this bill is estimated to 
cost not $400 billion over 30 years, but $55 billion, total, over those 
30 years. This bill will solve the problem. And that is just the cost 
to the Federal budget, ignoring the pain and suffering of people losing 
their pensions and businesses going out of business.
  That is the choice we have today. We can support a bipartisan bill 
that saves retirees' hard-earned pensions, protect businesses from 
going bankrupt, and costs far less than doing nothing, or we can oppose 
it and end up costing the taxpayers far more in the long run.
  Madam Speaker, I anticipate that my Republican colleagues will talk 
about structural reforms that are needed to prevent multiemployer plans 
from facing bankruptcy in the future. I agree.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 
minute.
  Madam Speaker, reforms are needed, and I am committed to working on a 
bipartisan basis to enact prospective reforms. But when the house is on 
fire, you don't debate on how the fire started or pontificate over how 
to prevent fires in the future; you put out the fire.
  So today we are putting out the fire and protecting retirement 
security for more than 1 million Americans across the country and 
saving the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle said that 
we have a house on fire and we must do something about it. What this 
bill does is it gives more gasoline to the arsonist who started the 
fire.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 397, a risky, fiscally 
irresponsible, politically motivated scheme that will negatively impact 
hardworking Americans and retirees.
  Union multiemployer pension plans are currently underfunded by $638 
billion, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, which 
ensures these pensions, has a $54 billion deficit. In other words, 
workers and retirees won't see the benefits they have been promised 
because of union and employer negligence.
  This problem requires a serious, bipartisan response. That is why, 
historically, Members on both sides of the aisle have worked together 
on this issue. But last month, when the Education and Labor Committee 
marked up H.R. 397, committee Republicans were shut out of the debate 
and denied the opportunity to offer even a single amendment, a highly 
unfortunate and inappropriate decision.
  For the first time ever, taxpayers will prop u failing, mismanaged, 
union-run pension plans. These plans, all 160 of them, can apply for a 
government loan. There is no limit to the loan amount, and, remarkably, 
the loans will be completely forgiven if they are unable to be repaid 
after 29 years.

  The chairman of the Education and Labor Committee said: ``If you 
can't pay it back, you can't pay it back.'' So, by the chairman's own 
admission, we are giving failed union pensions a blank check. What a 
deal.
  All the while, H.R. 397 allows plans to continue to promise new 
benefits, allowing their liabilities to grow.
  While I strongly oppose what H.R. 397 intends to do, I am equally 
appalled by

[[Page H7324]]

what the bill fails to do. This legislation fails to include any 
reforms that would ensure responsible funding of future benefit 
promises or prevent a similar situation from recurring.
  The bill also fails to address the chronic underfunding that plagues 
the entire union multiemployer system and passively accepts that plan 
trustees and actuaries may continue to underestimate pension promises--
to the detriment of workers and retirees. In fact, under H.R. 397, the 
situation could become far worse.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, now estimates that 
H.R. 397 could increase the Federal budget deficit by more than $48 
billion. But that estimate is based on last-minute, bogus Democrat pay-
fors and covers only the bill's first 10 years. If we look at the 30-
year scheme created by the bill, we will find a price tag of hundreds 
of billions of dollars. And remember, it is American taxpayers who are 
on the hook.
  Madam Speaker, Congress was set up to be in this position years ago 
because Democrats and unions and employers knew that Members and the 
public would feel sorry for the union members who were not taken care 
of by those they trusted to take care of them. Every Member here should 
feel angry about being put in this position. H.R. 397 is a fiscally 
irresponsible and careless approach that will cause far more harm than 
good.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to 
remind the ranking member that CBO estimates that the 30-year cost of 
this bill is about $55 billion of money that will not be paid back, or 
we can pay up to $400 billion over 30 years. We have a choice. I would 
pick the $55 billion.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wilson).
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Madam Speaker, as chairwoman of the Education 
and Labor Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, I 
rise today to urge my colleagues to unanimously pass the Butch Lewis 
Act of 2019.
  Failure to do so will have dire consequences for at least 1.3 million 
Americans who did everything right. They put in decades of hard work to 
ensure that their retirement years would be secure, so many of them in 
physically grueling jobs in mining and construction and on ships and 
the Nation's highways.
  They often sacrificed wage increases, choosing instead a contribution 
to their pension plans so that they could live in their golden years 
with dignity and peace, a life well planned. Yet, after all of that, 
retired people and future retirees are now living in fear of losing 
everything they worked so hard for, and that is a shame.
  Failure to pass this legislation also will have dire consequences for 
tens of thousands of current workers and regional economies and could 
cost American taxpayers between $170 billion and $240 billion.

                              {time}  1715

  There is a huge risk, so we must act now. This is an issue on which 
both Democrats and Republicans should agree. This issue has no party, 
no race, no religion. We are all in the same boat, and we are running 
out of time.
  Our failure to take action to protect retirees and American 
taxpayers, our constituents, is not an option. It is a necessity, and 
we must act now. There is no time to waste. Let's do the right thing 
and pass the Butch Lewis Act of 2019 today.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act. It is funny, in this 
town, rehabilitation is a word we use to kindly describe a bailout. For 
normal people, rehabilitation is a word that would conjure up the idea 
that perhaps today we are attempting to fix or improve the $638 billion 
pension problem before us.
  This bill would, more accurately, be called the bailout for 
multiemployer pensions act, because this bill does not contain any of 
the needed reforms to change the unsustainable trajectory of these 
plans.
  What does the bill do instead? It creates a new Federal Government 
bureaucracy. It allows for billions of dollars of loans to be just 
forgiven. It provides loan terms that actually encourage not paying 
down the principal of these loans.
  So to be clear, and to make no doubt, we do have to fix this pension 
problem, but real progress will only come from a careful, deliberate, 
and bipartisan process, and this bill was not designed to be 
bipartisan.
  In committee, Republicans were actually blocked from offering 
amendments that would have improved this bill. So here we are today, 
taking up floor time for a one-sided bill that does not fix the problem 
and that will not become law.
  When the majority wants to make real progress, I will be here, ready 
to fix the problem, ready to roll up my sleeves, ready to invest the 
bipartisan effort needed to make meaningful reforms. Until then, I will 
vote ``no'' on the bailout.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both Chairman Scott and Chairman Neal 
for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 397, the Butch Lewis 
Act. This is a historic moment for working men and women in this 
country, and it has been a long time coming because people have been 
working on this for a long time.
  Today, we are telling millions of Americans who worked a lifetime for 
their pensions that are now in jeopardy, through no fault of their own, 
that we are standing with you. We are listening. We are taking action.
  For too long, these working men and women have worked in fear, not 
knowing what was going to happen. They have given up pay raises. They 
played by the rules. They thought they would have a safe and secure 
retirement. By passing the Butch Lewis Act, we are sending a loud 
message that we hear them and are taking steps to ensure that their 
retirement that they worked for, for a lifetime, will be there when 
they need it.
  This is money hardworking men and women earned and counted on to 
retire safely, to afford to stay in their homes, to afford food on 
their table, and to afford their medicine. American workers have done 
their part. The House will soon do its part.
  I hope the Senate will also act quickly because I know the men and 
women, they have come to my door at 7 a.m., they have threatened 
suicide. They are scared.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in support of this 
legislation. One is from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
and one is from UNITE HERE.
                                      International Brotherhood of


                                                    Teamsters,

                                                    July 18, 2019.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The House of Representatives will soon 
     have the opportunity to ensure that more than a million 
     retirees and workers who have played by the rules will 
     receive the pension benefits they have earned through years 
     of hard work. On behalf of the International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters, its retirees and working families, I ask for a yes 
     vote on H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer 
     Pensions Act (often referred to as The Butch Lewis Act). As 
     you know, this legislation is of the highest priority for the 
     Teamsters Union.
       The multiemployer pension system has for many decades been 
     an essential foundation for providing financial security in 
     retirement for millions of Americans and their families. Now, 
     through no fault of their own, the earned pension benefits of 
     millions of retirees are being threatened due to the 
     ``critical and declining'' (financial) status and the 
     impending insolvency of a number of multiemployer pension 
     plans. No doubt you have heard from retirees and families who 
     live with this uncertainty and whose lives have been turned 
     upside down. H.R. 397 will ensure that we meet our 
     obligations to current retirees and workers for years to come 
     and to do so without retiree benefit cuts. It will strengthen 
     these plans and provide a path forward for financial 
     stability and solvency. It will provide improved retirement 
     security for both workers and retirees. And, it will lessen 
     the financial pressure on the Pension Benefit Guarantee 
     Corporation (PBGC) which also faces insolvency.
       The bill creates a Pension Rehabilitation Administration 
     (PRA) which would sell

[[Page H7325]]

     Treasury-issued bonds on the open market and then loan money 
     from the bond sale to these critical and declining 
     multiemployer pension plans. Plans borrowing from the PRA 
     must set aside the money in separate investments that match 
     pension payments for retirees. Retirees and their families 
     are guaranteed their promised benefits. It will also free up 
     remaining assets and future contributions to protect the 
     benefits for active workers.
       PRA loans will not be sufficient to help all financially 
     troubled multiemployer pension plans. Some will need 
     additional help. For such plans, the bill proposes that the 
     PBGC provide such help. In doing so, the cost to the Federal 
     government and the U.S. economy will be far less than 
     allowing Plans and the PBGC to fail. Unlike the current 
     federal pension insurance program, H.R. 397 protects benefits 
     before plan failure.
       The financial distress many of these plans face were and 
     are beyond the control of these retirees and workers. 
     Multiemployer pension plans have been buffeted by economic 
     turbulence over the decades--from deregulation to financial 
     melt downs to recessions.
       Pension statutes and legislation are extraordinarily 
     complex, none more so than multiemployer and Taft-Hartley 
     pension plans. They are both unique in their structure, and 
     the challenges they have faced. If these plans fail, it will 
     not only impact the retirees receiving the benefit, there 
     will be a broader impact on their communities and the 
     economy--adverse effects on economic growth and tax losses to 
     state, local and federal governments.
       H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act 
     provides a mechanism for ``critical and declining'' 
     multiemployer pension plans to address their serious 
     underfunding problem. It will strengthen these plans and 
     provide a path forward for financial stability and solvency. 
     Importantly, the bill does this while avoiding retiree 
     benefit cuts.
       I hope that I can report to our retirees and members in 
     your district that you stood with the International 
     Brotherhood of Teamsters family to enact this critically 
     important legislation. Vote to protect retirement benefits. 
     Vote yes on H.R. 397.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James P. Hoffa,
     General President.
                                  ____



                                                   UNITEHERE!,

                                     Las Vegas, NV, July 17, 2019.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 300,000 members of 
     UNITE HERE and their families, we strongly urge your support 
     for H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multi-Employer Pensions 
     Act.
       At a time when hard working American's are already anxious 
     about an economy where one job should be enough but often 
     isn't to make ends meet, we should also be very concerned 
     about the retirement security of millions of Americans.
       H.R. 397, also known as the ``Butch-Lewis Act'', includes a 
     modest, common sense approach to bringing stability and 
     reassurance to the retirement pensions of over a million 
     Americans. Only a small number of multi-employer plans are 
     facing financial difficulty, but that does not ease the pain 
     and potential devastation for the millions who honorably 
     worked hard for themselves and their families. We are talking 
     about auto workers, truck drivers, iron workers and other 
     impacted workers who live, work and retire in our 
     communities.
       If we do not offer the means to see those impacted plans 
     through to solvency, we will all feel the pain of their 
     distress during their retirement years--a time they have 
     worked hard to attain.
       On behalf of our members, I again urge you to support H.R. 
     397 and stand up for millions of middle-class Americans who 
     should be able to retire in dignity.
                                                        D. Taylor,
                                          International President.

  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott and Chairman Neal 
for their leadership and taking a lot of words and putting it into real 
action.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan is correct. The union members are not at fault. The union 
bosses are at fault, and hardworking, nonunion taxpayers should not be 
bailing out the union bosses for their mistakes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
David P. Roe).
  Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 397 because it is nothing more than a huge step 
backwards in our work to save failing multiemployer pensions.
  It is the government picking retiree winners and retiree losers. Our 
work in Congress, until now, has been bipartisan with both sides 
realizing that workers' retirement security is too important of an 
issue to play politics with. I and others have been willing to work 
across the aisle for a bipartisan solution that works for retirees and 
for taxpayers. That offer is still open.
  The idea that Congress should bail out union-negotiated pension 
plans, but not the retirement plans of millions of other Americans who 
have seen their companies go under and had their benefits reduced as a 
result, is the most unfair proposal that I have ever seen on the House 
floor.
  The Democrats are telling hardworking Americans that they should not 
only get stiffed in their retirement, but that their taxpayer dollars 
should be used to bail out someone else's retirement. To make matters 
worse, the bill itself is deeply flawed. It requires no fundamental 
changes to pension plans in poor financial shape, and no reforms to 
ensure that troubled plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
don't wind up in the same situation.
  Again, instead, the bill gives these plans a so-called loan, and then 
allows the loan principal to be forgiven if the plan cannot repay the 
loan. Simply put, this is not a loan. It is a taxpayer-funded gift. Why 
would anybody pay it back? This doesn't have to be partisan.
  In 2014, as chairman of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 
Subcommittee, I worked with the full committee chair, Chairman Kline, 
Ranking Member Miller, and the Obama administration to develop a 
bipartisan solution to save these plans. Our plan, the Multiemployer 
Pension Reform Act gave plans the tools they needed to avoid insolvency 
and continue offering benefits to retirees.
  If we passed such a good bipartisan bill, why are we here today? 
Unfortunately, the Obama administration made a political decision and 
refused to approve an application from the country's largest troubled 
plan, Central States. And while many supporters of today's bill cheered 
that decision, the Obama administration virtually ensured Central 
States retirees will receive far less in their retirement than they 
would have or could have, all because the Obama administration 
preferred politics over policy.
  I still have hope that the Senate will act in a more responsible 
manner. The concept of the multiemployer pension plan is a good one and 
an idea worth saving, but I would say this to supporters of this bill: 
By choosing to act in a largely partisan manner, you are further 
jeopardizing retiree benefits.
  Literally, every day these plans fail to act, is a step closer to 
bankruptcy. Today's action may be the final nail in the coffin for 
Central States, whose plan is in such dire straits they cannot wait 
another 18 months for a fix.
  Outside of Central States, there are many other pension plans in 
crisis, but all assuring that the PBGC multiemployer plan will be 
insolvent by the end of FY 2025.
  We have less than 6 years to solve this problem before retirees 
receive pennies on the dollar for what they have earned. I recommend 
voting against this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for yielding.
  In Oregon and across the country, people have worked hard to provide 
themselves and their families with a secure retirement by contributing 
a portion of their income to pensions.
  But now, through no fault of their own, too many of these hardworking 
Americans find that their pension plans are struggling, and without 
intervention, these plans will become insolvent, putting the retirement 
security of about 1.3 million people at risk.
  The bipartisan Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act, the 
Butch Lewis Act, will help protect retirees, workers, and employers by 
creating the Pension Rehabilitation Administration to issue bonds to 
finance loans for critical and declining status multiemployer pension 
plans. Importantly, this bill does not cut benefits for workers and 
retirees, benefits they have earned.
  Workers, families, businesses, and retirees are counting on Congress 
to address the growing retirement security crisis in our country and 
protect the benefits workers have earned over their lifetime. This 
bipartisan bill is one important piece of the solution to address the 
multiemployer pension crisis, and I urge all of my colleagues to join 
me in supporting it.
  I thank Chairman Scott and Chairman Neal for their leadership on this 
issue.

[[Page H7326]]

  

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the 
people we are trying to help in H.R. 397, and that is one of the 
reasons why I feel we need a real solution to this.
  Obviously, the pension plans are in such horrible shape that to 
continue with the current system and to continue with this bill would 
be a very expensive bailout for the taxpayer.
  Unlike some of my colleagues, I realize that the taxpayer will 
ultimately have to put something in thes plans. And the reason I say 
that is the multiemployer pension plan system was set up by Congress in 
the 1950s, and my guess is, the way it was set up, it is not surprising 
that it will fail. While the Congressmen who are at fault for this have 
long since retired and left us, we as a successor Congress, are 
supposed to do something.

  However, first of all, I don't think this is a sincere proposal. If 
it was a sincere proposal, it would have been passed when President 
Obama was President, and when the Democratic Party was in total control 
around here, about 10 years ago.
  We are going to have to, as part of this plan, change things in the 
future so we don't begin to run up more debt immediately. We are 
probably going to have to have the taxpayer do something to make up for 
the damage that has been done in the past, but to pass this bill will 
only delay that, in that it is really, quite frankly, just a political 
move.
  I strongly recommend that we get together, put together a new 
committee of four or eight people, and begin to do something. We know 
something has got to be done eventually, because not only do we have 
these workers hanging out there, but the way this multiemployer pension 
plan is set up, a lot of businesses are going to go under too unless 
something is done.
  But I am saddened today that the bill before us, I don't believe is a 
bill that, for all their talking, people really believe is a serious 
solution. Because if it was a serious solution, they would have passed 
that bill 10 years ago.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
  Mr. NORCROSS. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Chairman 
Neal and Chairman Scott for bringing this bill to the floor, and my 
colleague, Debbie Dingell, and Dr. Roe who sat on the supercommittee 
last time to address this.
  The Butch Lewis Act is a bill that makes sure that those Americans 
receive the wages that they earned. This is not a handout. These are 
deferred dreams, deferred wages that they said they will put aside 
during their active career so that they can live out the American 
Dream; those golden years, those pension years. They are deferred 
wages.
  I know firsthand. Over 3 years ago, my very first speech on the House 
floor was right here talking about pensions. For 37 years, I have been 
a member of a multiemployer plan, as a rank-and-file worker, and as a 
negotiator. I understand how they work.
  But the cost of doing nothing to the taxpayers is far greater than 
the loans we are giving out now. We bailed out the banks, gave them 
billions of dollars, but the people who earn these, who did nothing 
wrong, you are saying no to. We cannot screw the people who earned the 
wages. It is important for us to pass this because they did nothing 
wrong. They played by the rules. That is what we do in America.

                              {time}  1730

  This is not a grand conspiracy. This is about doing the right thing 
for the right people, for America.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 397. You can 
call it, Madam Speaker, whatever you want to call it, but the taxpayers 
are going to bail out an underwater multiemployer pension plan. It is 
just that simple, based on this legislation.
  Since my time in Congress, my colleagues and I on the House Education 
and Labor Committee have held numerous hearings on multiemployer 
pension plans. I have learned a few things. These plans currently are 
underfunded by $638 billion.
  How in the world did that happen? The Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation, PBGC, multiemployer insurance program has a $54 billion 
deficit and is expected to become insolvent by the end of fiscal year 
2025. According to the PBGC data, 75 percent of multiemployer 
participants are in plans that are less than 50 percent funded.
  I think we can all agree that the system has failed, and these 
retirees, I agree, deserve better.
  How were they so misled to believe their contributions would cover 
their retirement? In fact, this is just another example of unions 
overpromising and underdelivering. The union says, hey, if you pay 
this, you are going to get this retirement.
  As the owner of a small business, I like to think of myself as coming 
to the table, negotiating, and solving the problem. However, both 
parties must be willing to find a reasonable solution that works for 
everyone.
  The Democratic solution on the multiemployer pension program is 
shortsighted and partisan. In the business world, we don't call that 
problem-solving. We call that another massive taxpayer giveaway.
  Taxpayers are not going to stand for this. Not to my surprise, the 
Democratic solution is Big Government and billions of dollars in new 
costs. Again, this bailout is an unserious policy. It has a zero chance 
in the Senate, and I recommend a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you advise as to how much 
time is still available on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cardenas). The gentleman from Virginia 
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 
1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).
  Ms. WILD. Mr. Speaker, the crisis facing multiemployer pensions is 
not some faraway event, and it is not about politics or ideology. It is 
about people's lives and whether they will be able to retire in dignity 
after a lifetime of hard work--American people.
  By 2025, the Central States Pension Fund and the PBGC will be 
insolvent. That means over a million American employees' and retirees' 
earned benefits could disappear if we don't act right now.
  This crisis doesn't just affect those enrolled in multiemployer 
pension plans. If we don't act, the consequences will be detrimental 
for our local businesses, economies, and residents, ultimately 
affecting everyone, including millions of American families.
  Participants nationwide, including thousands in my district, could 
lose everything they have earned if we don't act. These folks who came 
to watch the proceedings today never wanted a bailout, as my colleague 
across the aisle termed it. They just want and deserve what they have 
earned. They deserve it.
  We need to pass this bill. We must pass this bill for them and for 
our country.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
  Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 397. The 
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act is nothing more than a 
false promise to American workers, retirees, and their families. House 
Democrats, instead of working together with us as they have done 
historically, moved this bill through committee without one single 
hearing or considering one single amendment.
  The result? A bill that makes no structural reforms to prevent or 
shore up future pension plan insolvencies. In fact, it incentivizes 
pension plan managers to offer generous underfunded benefits while 
taking risky bets at the cost of the American worker and retiree, 
knowing full well they have a forgivable taxpayer-funded loan to fall 
back on.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to abandon this bill and instead 
work with us so we can achieve forward-looking solutions to protect 
workers and prevent future insolvencies.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder 
of my time.

[[Page H7327]]

  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that retirees and workers in 
multiemployer union pension plans deserve better than a political 
statement disguised as a legislative proposal.
  Advancing this highly flawed bill, which has no chance of being 
passed in the Senate, will only result in delays rather than solutions 
for workers and retirees who are so rightfully concerned about the 
state of their pensions.
  Mr. Speaker, the individuals in the unions did trust those in charge. 
They are not at fault for what has happened, but I urge all of my 
colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 397, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following five letters in 
support: AARP, AFL-CIO, International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers, Service Employees International Union, and the 
United Steelworkers.


                                                         AARP,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 2019.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Republican Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: On behalf of our 
     nearly 38 million members nationwide and all Americans age 50 
     and older, AARP is pleased to urge House passage of H.R. 397, 
     the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act. This 
     bipartisan legislation would help enable eligible 
     multiemployer pension plans to continue to pay earned 
     pensions to retirees and fund their long-term pension 
     commitments.
       Over ten million workers, retirees, and their families are 
     counting on these earned retirement benefits for their 
     retirement security. As part of the FY 2015 Omnibus 
     Appropriations Act, with almost no debate, Congress permitted 
     underfunded multiemployer pension plans to cut the earned 
     pensions of current retirees. Congress' action broke forty 
     years of settled pension law and put hundreds of thousands of 
     retirees at risk of having their retirement benefits and 
     financial security undermined. Instead of cutting earned 
     pensions, Congress should instead enact reasonable solutions 
     to help enable multiemployer pension plans to pay earned 
     benefits and fully fund their pension plans over time.
       We commend the bipartisan group of sponsors on their bill's 
     proposed creation of a Pension Rehabilitation Administration, 
     within the Treasury Department, to provide low-cost loans to 
     qualified underfunded multiemployer pension plans. Plans 
     would have up to thirty years to pay earned retiree benefits, 
     prudently invest the loan proceeds, and re-pay the loan. 
     During the loan period, employers may not reduce 
     contributions and the plan may not increase promised 
     benefits. The plan must also demonstrate that receipt of the 
     loan will enable the plan to avoid insolvency, pay benefits 
     and loan interest, and accumulate sufficient funds to repay 
     the loan principal when due.
       AARP urges passage of the Rehabilitation of Multiemployer 
     Pensions Act to protect the hardearned pensions of retirees. 
     We look forward to working with Congress to enact this 
     important bill, as well as additional legislation to 
     adequately fund all earned multiemployer retiree pensions and 
     the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. If you have any 
     questions, please feel free to contact me.
           Sincerely,

                                             Nancy A. LeaMond,

                                      Executive Vice President and
     Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer.
                                  ____



                                                      AFL-CIO,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 2019.
       Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO is pleased that the 
     ``Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act'' (H.R. 397) 
     will be on the House floor this week. We urge you to support 
     this bill, as it is the first step towards enactment of 
     legislation to address our nation's looming pension crisis.
       Absent federal action, the retirement income security of 
     over one million American workers, retirees, and their 
     spouses across the country will be in jeopardy because of the 
     impending failure of their multiemployer pension plans. By 
     establishing a federal loan program for troubled plans 
     meeting certain criteria, H.R. 397 reflects the fact that 
     allowing these plans to fail will have a devastating impact 
     not only on individual retirees and their families, but also 
     on their communities and their employers.
       The working men and women whose retirement income security 
     is at risk have not forgotten the 2008 record-setting federal 
     rescue of Wall Street. Multiemployer pension plan 
     participants and retirees are no less worthy than the 
     financial services firms who were the beneficiaries of the 
     $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Moreover, unlike 
     the Wall Street banks, they played no part in either the 
     industry deregulation or financial crisis that weakened many 
     multiemployer pension plans.
       Congress has the ability to avert the impending retirement 
     security crisis if it acts expeditiously. The 
     ``Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act'' is an 
     important bill because it is the only legislation that, thus 
     far, offers a solution to that crisis. On behalf of the AFL-
     CIO, I urge you to support it.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
     Director, Government Affairs Department.
                                  ____

         International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
           Workers,
                                                    July 22, 2019.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the International 
     Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), I 
     strongly urge you to vote ``Yes'' on H.R. 397, The 
     Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019. 
     Commonly referred to as the ``Butch Lewis Act'', this highly 
     important and innovative legislation would help save those 
     multiemployer pension plans which are financially-troubled 
     while protecting the earned and vested benefits of current 
     and future retirees.
       The multiemployer pension system is on the brink of a real 
     and disastrous crisis. While the majority of multi employer 
     pension plans are financially sound, the PBGC estimates that 
     over 100 multiemployer pension plans, covering more than a 
     million participants, are in ``critical and declining 
     status'' and will become insolvent within the next twenty 
     years. Currently, the only Federal assistance offered to 
     these troubled plans comes from the PBGC and only after the 
     plan has already failed. Given the number of plans on the 
     brink of failure, the PBGC' s multiemployer insurance program 
     is projected to become insolvent by 2025.
       The Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019 
     offers a real, proactive solution which rehabilitates failing 
     plans, bolsters the PBGC, and protects the earned benefits of 
     millions of retirees, workers, and their families. This 
     innovative legislation would allow the Treasury to provide 
     low-cost loans to qualified underfunded multiemployer pension 
     plans. Under the legislation, the troubled plans would have 
     up to thirty years to prudently invest the loaned funds and 
     would use the investment earnings to pay retiree benefits, 
     improve the plan's financial position, and pay interest on 
     the loan to the Treasury. At the end of the thirty year 
     period, the plan would pay back the loan in full. In order to 
     be eligible for the loan, the plan would have to demonstrate 
     that the loan would enable the plan to remain solvent, pay 
     all retiree benefits and loan interest, and repay the loan 
     principle when due. During the loan period, contributing 
     employers would have to maintain their contribution levels 
     and the plan would not be allowed to make any increases to 
     retiree benefits.
       In the wake of the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 
     2014, a brutal scheme to steal the pension promises made to 
     retirees, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act 
     provides a much needed correction and remedy. This 
     legislation will work to lift troubled multiemployer plans 
     out of their financial hole, while maintaining the financial 
     integrity of the PBGC. Most importantly, the Rehabilitation 
     for Multiemployer Pensions Act provides a pathway to 
     accomplishing these venerable goals without stealing from 
     retirees, workers, and their families.
       The Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act is the 
     only solution put forth to date which appropriately and 
     adequately addresses the multiemployer pension crisis by 
     providing a lifeline to plans in critical financial status 
     while maintaining the integrity of healthy multiemployer 
     plans and the PBGC without cutting the earned benefit 
     promises made to our nation's retirees and working families.
       For these reasons, I urge you to support this vitally 
     important legislation and vote ``Yes'' on H.R. 397, The 
     Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019.
           Thank you,
                                             Robert Martinez, Jr.,
     International President.
                                  ____



                                                         SEIU,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2019.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the two million members 
     of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), I write 
     to urge you to support H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for 
     Multiemployer Pensions Act. Improving the solvency of 
     troubled multiemployer pension plans and the Pension Benefit 
     Guaranty Corporation (``PBGC'') are the two critical issues 
     that need to be addressed, and this legislation will 
     accomplish that without jeopardizing plans that are already 
     solvent.
       SEIU and its Locals sponsor 19 multiemployer pension plans 
     covering over 800,000 retired and active participants and 
     their beneficiaries. The health of the multiemployer 
     retirement community is very important to our union, our 
     members, and the employers from the health and service 
     industries which participate in these funds. We support a 
     resilient multiemployer pension system that provides 
     continued retirement security to millions of American workers 
     and their families.
       Fortunately, none of SEIU's plans are classified as 
     ``critical and declining.'' Nevertheless we have followed 
     closely developments in plans that are facing possible 
     insolvency as we believe that such a development would cause 
     serious harm to thousands of workers and retirees, to 
     employers, to the economy and to the multiemployer pension 
     system as a whole.

[[Page H7328]]

       The loan program which the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer 
     Pensions Act would establish should maximize the chances that 
     troubled plans avoid insolvency. Thousands of workers and 
     retirees in these plans will be able to avoid devastating 
     benefit cuts. Also, the legislation would dramatically reduce 
     the expected liabilities of the PBGC and can save the PBGC's 
     insurance program for all multiemployer plans.
       We thank you for your support for workers and their 
     retirement security.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mary Kay Henry,
     International President.
                                  ____



                                          United Steelworkers,

                                    Pittsburgh, PA, July 24, 2019.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.2 million active 
     and retired members of the United Steelworkers, I urge you to 
     pass H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions 
     Act. Otherwise known to most as the ``Butch-Lewis Act'' 
     scheduled for the floor this week. The legislation will 
     reassert our nation's commitment to millions of retirees in 
     the multi-employer pension system, and ensure that they 
     receive the benefits they have earned without needless cuts 
     to pensioner incomes.
       Pensions are one of the most secure forms of long-term 
     retirement if government, industry and workers operate in a 
     cooperative manner to ensure long-term sustainability. 
     Unfortunately, small subsets of plans, battered by federal 
     deregulation, changing industries, and unfair trade, have 
     fallen into decline. After a decade of effort by these 
     pension plans to recover since the Great Recession, the 
     damage done by inadequate federal policy could cause almost 
     1.5 million to lose their retirement and impact all of the 10 
     million participants who are enrolled in multi-employer 
     pension plans.
       Representative Neal's bipartisan legislation is the 
     guidepost to ensuring millions of retired Americans receive 
     the benefits they are promised. The legislation will create a 
     Pension Rehabilitation Administration under the Department of 
     Treasury and permit the sale of bonds to finance long-term, 
     low-interest loans to troubled pension plans. By shoring up 
     critical and declining status pension plans, millions of 
     retirees will be assured of a continued secure retirement 
     without forcing cuts to retiree benefits.
       During the loan period, employers may not reduce 
     contributions and the plan may not increase promised 
     benefits. The plan must demonstrate that receipt of the loan 
     will enable the plan to avoid insolvency, pay benefits and 
     loan interest, and accumulate sufficient funds to repay the 
     loan principal when due. Providing federal oversight and 
     access to capital, multi-employer pension funds will be able 
     to manage the long-term commitments to retirees which in turn 
     will reduce long-term government risk of default at the 
     Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC).
       For these reasons, I urge you to pass H.R. 397, the 
     Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas M. Conway,
                                          International President.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the 
multiemployer crisis, the most expensive and harmful thing the Congress 
can do is nothing. Over the course of 4 years and multiple hearings, 
including five hearings of a joint select committee, we have repeatedly 
heard the need to address this issue.
  We have also heard about process. Let me tell you about the process. 
We had 1 year of a select committee--no plan from the Republicans. This 
bill was introduced in January--no plan. We had a hearing in March--no 
plan. We had a markup in June--no plan or amendment until shortly 
before the markup occurred. Then, instead of seriously considering 
those amendments, they required us to read the whole bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a choice to make. Members of Congress can 
continue to wring our hands and listen to complaints while the 
catastrophe continues to unfold and unnecessarily adds hundreds of 
billions of dollars in costs to the Federal budget, or we can act on 
this bipartisan solution.
  The only bipartisan solution pending in Congress today is the Butch 
Lewis Act. This bill addresses the immediate crisis, protects hard-
earned pensions, protects many businesses from bankruptcy, avoids 
misery, and saves the taxpayers money.
  In fact, according to the CBO, this bill, over 30 years, will cost 
less than $60 billion. Doing nothing over 30 years will cost $300 
billion to over $400 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the solution. I urge my colleagues to do 
the same to ensure that all workers can retire with stability and 
dignity.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and I ask unanimous consent that he may 
control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for 
Multiemployer Pensions Act, commonly referred to as the Butch Lewis 
Act.
  Contrary to what you have heard, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan 
bill. It has Republican sponsors. Peter King is about to speak next. At 
different intervals, there have been up to 20 Republicans who have 
signed on to this legislation.
  This addresses a real problem that, for 2 years, Congress has talked 
about and not moved on. For 2 years, we have worked on this. I sat on 
the special commission for 2 years. It became a debating society rather 
than an opportunity to act on a measured response to a crisis that is 
now pending that could be averted by the work that we undertake today. 
There are 200 bipartisan sponsors of this legislation in this House.
  Ten million Americans participate in multiemployer plans, and about 
1.3 million of them are in plans that are quickly running out of money. 
And, yes, we have a plan.
  These are American workers who planned for their retirement. Now, 
after working for 30-plus years, they are facing financial uncertainty 
at a time when they are often unable to return to the workforce.
  It is worth noting that we have not arrived here because of 
malfeasance or corruption. These are forces of the marketplace that 
have caused this distortion.
  When I heard the gentleman from South Dakota say earlier that this is 
a bailout, this is not a bailout. This is a backstop.
  Do you know what a bailout is? It is the savings and loan crisis. 
That is a bailout.
  Do you know what a bailout is? Wall Street. That is a bailout.
  Do you know what a bailout is? When Enron made sure that the people 
at the top of the corporation kept their money and that the people at 
the bottom lost their pensions. That is a bailout.
  We are talking about a sensible plan. As I have noted, I have worked 
for almost 2 years to build within the Department of the Treasury an 
opportunity for a super-administrator to help to nurse these plans back 
to good health.
  Rita Lewis is in this gallery today, and she is a beneficiary of the 
Central States Pension Plan, which is the largest of the underfunded 
multiemployer pension plans.
  She and Butch Lewis did nothing wrong. They played by the rules, 
precisely as we would ask people to do.
  So then we hear that this is about union bosses. Then we hear that 
this is about malfeasance. This is entirely about people who have been 
circumspect in the manner in which they have treated their pension 
plans.
  She is looking at a significant cut in her pension after years of 
hard work and when retirement is finally in sight. Many workers and 
retirees have stories very similar to Mrs. Lewis'. These are real 
people with a very real problem if Congress doesn't act.
  The American people sent us here to address problems like 
multiemployer pension plans, and the legislation before us today, 
despite what anybody and everybody says, accomplishes that. It would 
give millions of workers and retirees like those who have joined Mrs. 
Lewis in the gallery today the security and the retirement that they 
have worked and planned for in their golden years.
  The Butch Lewis Act would allow pension plans to borrow money they 
need to remain solvent--borrow, emphasis on ``borrow''--and continue to 
provide retirement security for retirees and workers for decades to 
come while the plan is nursed back to health.
  Let me remind my colleagues: Plans that receive loans under this bill 
are subject to numerous requirements and ample oversight. They are not 
permitted to increase benefits or to reduce contributions, and loan 
proceeds must be invested in conservative investments, grade-A 
instruments. This is not a bailout. This is a loan program. It is a 
commonsense solution. It is the

[[Page H7329]]

private sector coming together with public-sector opportunities to 
address this crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say about it when I close, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to avoid references to 
occupants of the gallery.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 397, which is truly 
unfortunate because I know the authors' goals here are very well-
intended.
  I have worked as a meatpacker; I have worked as a sheet metal worker; 
and I have worked construction. I know how hard these union families 
work, both for their wages and for their retirement.
  It is why Republicans and Democrats agree we are in a multiemployer 
pension crisis. When there are over 1.3 million workers covered by 
these union-managed plans whose pensions are set to be drained entirely 
over the next decade, that is a crisis. These figures only scratch the 
surface. If we are to look at the bigger picture of every union-managed 
pension, less than half the promises made by trustees to these union 
workers are actually funded--less than half.
  To put it simply, there is $638 billion promised to workers' 
retirement that is absolutely imaginary. That is wrong.
  This bill, I think, doubles down on the worst aspects of the pension 
system that have these workers in a pickle today.

                              {time}  1745

  Congress has tried to kick the can down the road before. In 2006, 
Congress waived the required contributions for plans that said: We just 
can't make the contributions.
  And what happened? Things got worse for the workers.
  2007, plans were $193 billion underfunded. A couple years ago, it had 
tripled. They were three times worse off.
  PBGC--they are the Federal insurer of these plans--went from a 
deficit of $739 million; their deficit increased seventyfold. That is 
even worse for the workers.
  So rather than continuing the status quo in today's partisan 
exercise--and just be honest. Having nine Republicans does not make 
this a bipartisan bill. And we already know, unfortunately, because it 
is one party, this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. Democrats 
acknowledge it. Republicans do. Even some of the unions do.
  That is why I think a solution needs to happen this year, getting it 
to the President's desk so we say: Let's find a bipartisan solution to 
offer certainty, stability, and accountability and save these union-
managed plans.
  We ought to be working together to ensure that the plans can make 
good on their promises to our union workers. This means eliminating the 
various gimmicks some of these plans are allowed to use.
  Plans have to accurately measure their pension promises in a way 
similar to insurance companies making those same promises. For example, 
I don't understand: Why are promises to unions worth only one-third of 
the pension promises made to workers who are working for a single 
company? Aren't union workers just as important, and aren't those 
promises just as important for them as other workers?
  Equally important, we have folks on accountability. A promise is a 
promise, and companies need to be on the hook for every pension promise 
they made to their workers. And so, by the way, do the trustees.
  Why do we allow the same people to operate the same way and leave the 
same union workers behind? What sense does that make?
  And, finally, one of the reasons we oppose this bill is we need to 
prevent the severely underfunded plans from digging themselves even 
deeper in the hole under the guise of protecting workers. We have to 
wall off the contributions that fund these new promises that we know 
will be broken instead of perpetuating what now is sort of a Ponzi 
scheme: Retirees are paid out of the contributions that are supposed to 
fund benefits to younger workers. That is double counting, and that is 
what gets people in trouble.
  I believe our union workers deserve better. The companies in these 
plans deserve better.
  This bill doesn't make these plans more stable. It doesn't end 
underfunding. It doesn't make them secure for the long term. And our 
biggest worry as Republicans, it doesn't solve the problem. So these 
same workers, years down the road, are going to be in the same problem. 
We haven't helped them.
  I think our workers deserve better, which is why I strongly urge all 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  I give my commitment for the Ways and Means Republicans to work with 
you, Mr. Chairman, to find a real solution. Our workers really do 
deserve this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. King), and I believe he is a Republican demonstrating that 
this is a bipartisan piece of legislation.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, 
and I address this to my Republican and Democratic friends.
  I am the lead Republican sponsor of this bill and I am proud to be 
because, as far as I am concerned, this bill protects and helps the men 
and women that we Republicans claim to care about: hardworking, middle-
income people who play by the rules.
  They are not looking for welfare. They are not looking for a free 
ride. They have played by the rules. They are the backbone of our 
communities.
  They are Democrats. They are Republicans. They are Black. They are 
White. They are people we rely on all the time. They have done 
everything they have been asked to do.
  Now, they are not high-paid CEOs. They are not big bankers. They are 
ordinary, day-to-day Americans, the people we claim to represent. And 
to allow them not to be taken care of, not to be protected, that this 
``not be done to me'' just flies in the face of our oath of office.
  We have an obligation to these men and women who have done so much 
for their country, and there is no example of malfeasance. We are not 
talking about that. We are talking about changing economic conditions 
that have affected these multiemployer pension plans. That is the 
reality. Our economy is moving fast, so there are people getting ahead. 
There are also people being left behind.
  It is our duty to make sure that everyone gets the opportunity to go 
forward, that those who are entering their golden years, who planned, 
did everything they had to do, were asked to do, were expected to do, 
that they not be left out.
  It is easy to look at some actuarial chart and put on the green 
eyeshade and say: Well, this may cause this; this may cause that.
  In fact, even if we do that, to me, the economic loss by not 
protecting these workers is far worse than whatever the cost may be. 
And as Congressman Neal said, this is not a bailout. It is a backstop. 
It is doing what has to be done.
  And, again, they are not high-priced CEOs. They are not looking for a 
free ride. They are not trying to get a tax reduction for their jet or 
anything like that. They just want to get what they are entitled to, 
wha they have earned, and what they played by the rules to get.

  So, again, as a Republican, I am proud to stand for this and, also, 
for all Republicans in my district who are proud Teamsters, proud union 
members, as I was a union member.
  Again, we should not be setting class against class, not talking 
about union bosses and union corruption. That stuff should have gone 
out in the 1930s.
  We are all Americans. They are hardworking Americans. They deserve to 
receive the protection that we, as Members of the Congress, can give 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge support of this bill.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), one of the key members of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady) for yielding.
  I may come to the microphone with a slightly different message, 
having been on the bipartisan multiemployer pension commission, having 
hundreds of staff-hours into digging into the numbers and desperately 
trying to come up

[[Page H7330]]

with an honest, holistic, complete solution.
  I fear we are about to do a level of violence here financially that 
we don't mean to. A previous Democrat speaker in the previous testimony 
actually spoke about we need to do a lifeboat.
  If you do the math here, we are not doing a lifeboat. We are putting 
a little life preserver out when we need a big lifeboat. And the math--
let's be honest about the math. If we actually come here, and I know 
this chart is too small to read, but I brought it up because we have 
all seen the actuarial report that makes it very clear.
  If we actually use anything even close to what a union worker for a 
single employer plan--the protection, the rate of return, the net 
present value calculations they get--if we do that to these 
multiemployers, the vast majority of the multiemployer plans are in the 
red.
  And we are, right now, about to fix an offer--whether you want to 
call it a bailout, whether you want to call it a subsidy, it is really 
expensive, and we are only taking care of a small portion of the 
problem.
  What are we about to do to all the others, saying: Well, you were 
close to the cutoff; you are on your own?
  Is that the type of cruelty you are actually about to pass, telling 
everyone we took care of the problem when the vast majority of the 
workers in these plans are on the other side of the cliff?
  I beg of you, come back. We were so close in the commission work, and 
it was painful. Everyone was going to be mad at us, and it got a little 
too politically difficult.
  But there is a mathematical way to get there. And for once, can we 
use our calculators to actually solve the problem and be honest rather 
than the political rhetoric that is absolutely vacuous on the scale of 
this problem.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Murphy).
  Mrs. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Butch Lewis Act.
  Passage of this bill is vital to millions of Americans who have 
worked hard and played by the rules. That includes tens of thousands of 
workers and retirees who live in Florida and hundreds of workers and 
retirees who reside in my Orlando area district.
  I want to highlight section 4(h) of the bill, which was added at my 
request between committee markup and floor consideration. This 
provision requires the Pension Rehabilitation Administration to provide 
an annual report to Congress on pension plans that have received a loan 
under this bill and that are at risk of failing to repay interest or 
principal on that loan. Such a failure would require Federal taxpayers 
to absorb the cost of the loan.
  This provision to increase congressional oversight will maximize the 
number of plans that repay their loans and minimize the financial 
burden on Federal taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Neal for working with me to 
make this important change, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a key member of the Ways and Means Committee, 
a businessperson, and who funds retirements and know how hard these 
workers work.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding.
  Listen, I share the same concerns. I don't think there is anybody I 
agree with, probably, on 99 percent of what we talk about than Mr. 
Neal; and I have been, for the last couple years, trying to figure out 
how to fix this.
  If this would actually fix it, that would be great. We look at this 
like it is some type of a government program that hasn't been run 
right; and Lord knows, there is enough of those out there. This is a 
private plan.
  We keep talking about union members, and I have to tell you, I live 
in a union town. I grew up with union members. I work with people. My 
dad was the first Kelly to wear a white shirt to work for crying out 
loud.
  But the question isn't about union members being irresponsible. It is 
about union plans that just didn't function the way they are supposed 
to.
  If I knew going out of here today and voting for this legislation 
would fix the problem, I would do it in a minute. But we know it is not 
going to. And then we will have people who will clap and say, yes, they 
passed it. Well, we are going in the right direction. And we know it is 
not going any further than the floor of the House.
  Fixing the plan is paramount. Let's quit figuring out who we are 
going to put the blame on and figure out how we are going to fix it.
  I am not saying it is anybody's fault on their own. But, 
collectively, you have got to look at, if I am a member of a union, I 
am saying: So all those things that I won at the bargaining table, all 
that compensation I passed up, all those things that I could have asked 
for but didn't because I was planning for the future, I found out that 
the people who I entrusted my future to weren't capable of running the 
program the right way.

  The program that we have at my small business is okay. We are going 
to be able to meet our obligations. We have got to stop using taxpayer 
money to fix irresponsible decisions or actions by people who didn't--
maybe they knew what they were doing; maybe they didn't know what they 
were doing. I am not blaming anybody. But the real problem sits on our 
doorstep right now today.
  And believe me, there is nothing easier than loaning other people's 
money to somebody who needs it. I get that. But the truth of the matter 
is every single penny we talk about comes out of hardworking American 
taxpayers' pockets. They had no role to play in this, and what we are 
saying is you are going to have to bail them out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to fix this. I want to 
see it fixed, and I want to see everybody in labor feel that all those 
generational gains, all of that negotiation actually meant something.
  I think it is a shame when they look at, well, why isn't it 
functioning the way we were told it was functioning when we signed that 
contract? It wasn't their fault. It certainly wasn't the rest of 
America's taxpayers. Something failed, probably a lot more than one 
instance's worth.
  But today, we aren't fixing this. We are putting it across something 
that isn't going to get through the Senate, and we are giving people 
false hope, which I think is the worst thing we can do. Let's not make 
promises we can't keep.
  Chairman Neal, I would be glad to work with you any amount of time. 
However we have to do it to get this fixed, it has to get fixed.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal), and I appreciate his laser-like focus on this issue.
  We are hearing people in an alternative universe. The problems that 
we are facing financially are not an issue of mismanagement. It is the 
near collapse of the economy that plunged it into a downward spiral and 
the fact that the deregulation by the Congress in the trucking industry 
meant that there were many, many jobs that disappeared. Many plans were 
no longer sustainable.
  But I find it rich to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle 
talk about fiscal conservatism and protecting the taxpayer's money. 
These are the folks who passed a tax bill, without the benefit of a 
hearing, that added $2.3 trillion to the deficit. And they are ignoring 
the fact that, if we allow these plans to go over the edge, it will 
cost five, six, eight times as much money.
  Let's get real here.
  I appreciate the commitment that we have, Mr. Chairman, to a 
bipartisan solution. There are people on the other side of the aisle 
who want to work on that. This isn't the last word. We have things to 
do, but this is, however, the first step to get us there.

[[Page H7331]]

  


                              {time}  1800

  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Smith), one of the leaders of our Tax Policy Subcommittee 
efforts.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I agree we have a serious problem 
with multiemployer pensions which needs to be addressed. However, this 
bill, I believe, will actually set us back.
  It does nothing to address the underlying structural issues of these 
plans. It actually does nothing to protect younger workers, who will be 
asked to keep paying into a system which remains troubled. And it 
saddles taxpayers with liabilities which are unlikely to be paid back, 
at a massive cost to taxpayers.
  Let me provide just one alarming example of how flawed this proposal 
is, which I also highlighted in our committee markup.
  Under this legislation, if a pension plan applies for a loan and the 
newly created Pension Rehabilitation Administration cannot make a 
determination on that plan's ability to repay in order to approve or 
deny the loan within 90 days, the loan would be automatically deemed 
approved.
  Taxpayers deserve timely responses from Treasury, but no reputable 
financial institution would rubberstamp loans like this.
  Pensioners and taxpayers both deserve better. Let's work together to 
deliver a real solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge opposition to this bill so that we can, 
together, focus on a better solution.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the always erudite Congressman.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, for years, multiemployer pension plans 
offered working-class Americans something almost priceless: a nest egg 
for their retirement. This security was provided through collective 
bargaining benefit plans. Workers put in their own hard-earned 
dollars--they did not fall down on their obligations--for the promise 
of a safe and secure retirement.
  Workers entered into a contract. You know what a contract is?
  Industry deregulation, the decrease in the unionized workforce after 
decades of concerted political attacks, and the devastating--the other 
side had the House of Representatives for so many years in the last 20 
years; they never even introduced a labor bill. What are they talking 
about--bipartisan?
  This means almost 200 multiemployer plans are projected to fail. Some 
of them are going to be in your district, in your district. Plans are 
projected to fail, many within the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, 1.3 
million are at risk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. At the Joint Select Committee on Solvency of 
Multiemployer Pension Plans hearing last year, my constituent Carol 
Podesta-Smallen said that her monthly benefits were on the verge of 
being cut by 61 percent--read that--from $2,600 to $1,022. Imagine that 
loss.
  ``My biggest fear,'' she told the committee, ``is losing my home'' 
and ``ending up in a shelter.''
  Thanks to the Butch Lewis Act, which creates a unique public-private 
partnership, 1.3 million working Americans might not have to fear any 
longer.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Estes), a member of the Ways and Means Committee who, as a State 
treasurer, has worked with these public pension programs.
  Mr. ESTES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 397.
  Protecting pensions and retirement security for all Americans should 
be one area where Republicans and Democrats can agree. It should be a 
top priority in Congress.
  As the gentleman from Virginia indicated earlier, these plans need 
structural reform. Sadly, this bill does not include any.
  H.R. 397 falls short of making any meaningful structural reforms to 
address the problems of underfunding or provide a method to pay back 
the loans. Instead, H.R. 397 provides taxpayer-subsidized loans to 
multiemployer pension plans that are insolvent or in danger of becoming 
insolvent.
  This only throws out more taxpayer dollars while kicking the can down 
the road. This is unacceptable. We can and should do better.
  However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have rushed 
this partisan legislation to the House floor with almost zero 
Republican feedback or amendments.
  Instead of a partisan bill with no chance of going anywhere, I 
believe we should work together on serious bipartisan solutions to make 
the needed reforms so that we don't get right back in this situation 
again.
  As Kansas State treasurer, we reformed the public pension system. We 
should do that with this system as well.
  As Kansas State Treasurer, I helped reform the Kansas public pension 
program when it was facing a financial crisis and set it on a path to 
being solvent.
  In fact, when I was sworn-in as state treasurer, Kansas had the 
second worst funded pension in the nation. But thanks to reforms we 
enacted, KPERS is now funded at 67% and ranked 29th in the country.
  This was a big turnaround and is also the same kind of leadership and 
action we need now to preserve and protect pensions across the country. 
Pension plans can be reformed even after 2008 stockmarket decline.
  Unfortunately, today's bill does nothing to keep pensions solvent in 
the future.
  American workers and families deserve better and I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this bill.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of the Butch Lewis Act, and I do so because we are not talking about 
bailing out savings and loans. We are not talking about giving tax 
breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent.
  We are talking about protecting the benefits of hardworking men and 
women who have worked for decades: truck drivers, bakers, grocery 
clerks, coal miners, people who have given their all to make sure that 
our communities continue to live and thrive.
  I commend Chairman Neal and Chairman Scott, the Democratic 
leadership, for bringing this bill to the floor. I urge that everybody 
vote for it.
  Vote for the men and women who have kept America strong.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago this Congress 
saved the American economy by extending Federally secured low- or no-
interest loans to the banking and insurance industries and the American 
automakers. In many cases, it was the reckless activity of those 
industries that caused the economic crisis.
  And nothing for hardworking American families.
  In 2017, this Congress passed a 14 percent corporate tax cut, 
creating a $2 trillion debt, to many of the same industries that almost 
destroyed the American economy.
  And, again, nothing for America's working families.
  Today, more than 200 pension plans covering 1.5 million Americans are 
seriously in danger of failing. Working families from Buffalo to Boston 
are threatened with their pensions and their retirement savings being 
ripped away from them.
  Mr. Speaker, the Butch Lewis Act, brought to the floor today under 
the leadership of Chairman Richard Neal and  Bobby Scott, will provide 
stability and retirement security for millions of humble, hardworking 
Americans, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my strong 
support of the Butch Lewis Act.
  This bill would ensure that multiemployer pension plans can continue 
to provide security to millions of retired workers, everybody from the 
Teamsters to the United Food and Commercial Workers.
  This is particularly important for my district in Los Angeles County, 
which is home to thousands of actors, musicians, and so many more 
creative professionals.
  But the American Federation of Musicians and Employers' Pension Fund 
is

[[Page H7332]]

set to run out of money within 20 years, putting their 50,000 members 
in danger. In fact, it is tragic that this fund has been put in the 
position of applying to the U.S. Treasury for a reduction in benefits, 
the benefits that these workers put in a lifetime of hard work to earn.
  Instead, the Butch Lewis Act would give pension funds like this loans 
for 30 years to help build up their funds, ensuring that workers can 
keep the full benefits that they earned and counted on.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Butch Lewis 
Act.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Suozzi).
  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, every Democrat and every Republican in this 
House believes, or at least should believe, that if you are willing to 
go to work every single day, you are willing to work 40 or 50 hours a 
week, you are willing to work 48 or 50 weeks a year, you should have a 
decent life in America.
  That is the American Dream: If you work hard, you make enough money 
so you can find a place to live, you can educate your children, you can 
retire one day without being scared.
  And, right now, 1.3 million Americans are scared that they are going 
to lose the retirement benefits that they negotiated for.
  We have got to work together to try and solve this problem on their 
behalf.
  Chairman Neal has stated he has been working on this for the past 2 
years. People say, ``Oh, we have got to work together. We have got to 
work together.''
  Let's do it already. This is your opportunity to try and move 
together to help hardworking people in America, to save the American 
Dream for people that have put the time in, that have done the hard 
work, that have negotiated for their benefits.
  It is time to protect these people. And it is time to stop saying we 
are going to work together; it is time to work together now and pass 
the Butch Lewis Act.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeatedly during the course of this 
conversation and debate that somehow this is a bailout.
  I even heard one speaker reference public pension plans. What has 
that got to do with this?
  The subject in front of us today is the multiemployer pension plan 
system that is under duress through no fault of the individuals who 
were supposed to receive the derived benefit on a date certain based 
upon the contribution that they made.
  Instead, we find ourselves in a position where the argument has 
become that somehow this is a bailout of special interests.
  This is a backstop of hardworking men and women who have set aside 
prescribed numbers of dollars for the purpose of enjoying a period of 
time in their lives that they have carefully planned for.
  Now, let me draw attention to the following. For 2 years we have 
worked on this legislation, and I know there are men and women of 
goodwill on both sides who would like to find a solution.
  But the truth is, this is the only plan in town. This is the only 
plan that has been submitted, formally or informally, after 2 years of 
planning and work and an exhaustive 1 year of a special commission that 
came up with no solution to the multiemployer pension plan problem.

  So, instead, we constructed, through a careful process, an 
opportunity where everybody on the Ways and Means Committee was heard.
  I have been around long enough to have a special regard for the 
minority in a legislative institution. They get to be heard. They get 
to offer amendments.
  They offered those amendments. Now, I was prepared to accept a couple 
of those amendments that I thought were actually pretty good, the 
provision being that I attached to that, to accept the amendment, they 
would have to vote for the legislation.
  So I hope--and despite what we are hearing, by the way, that this 
doesn't have a chance in the Senate----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  The idea that we are hearing that this has no chance in the Senate, I 
disagree with that. I disagree with that profoundly.
  There is an opportunity, once this moves to the Senate, to at least 
have something to negotiate with, the Butch Lewis Act.
  And I think that there are men and women, again, in the Senate who 
are prepared to act on this problem, largely because the contagion from 
this plan will eventually make its way and leach into the PBGC.
  The head of the PBGC, while not endorsing this specific plan, said to 
me: Mr. Chairman, I am glad you are doing what you are doing because 
you are going to invite further opportunities to address this problem, 
short of, in the end, having to bail out the PBGC, which will happen if 
we don't formally address the measure that is in front of us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Look, it is not enough to do something. We have to do the right 
thing. We know the Senate isn't going to consider this bill. They have 
told everyone. There is no one in the Senate predicting this bill will 
be taken up.
  The White House certainly won't support it in its current form. But, 
like us, they believe we need to find a solution.
  When all is said and done, I know this bill is well intended. I know 
the author and leader is well intended because I know him.
  I think this will actually delay Congress from making the progress we 
really need to on this issue.
  So, today, after what will be a largely partisan vote, we are going 
to be forced to start over at step one.
  I just think union workers and their families, who work incredibly 
hard every day, that promises to them ought to be kept. And they demand 
better from us.

                              {time}  1815

  To solve this issue, we have to work together to get to the root 
cause, which is that there are lower standards and less accountability 
for these union-managed plans. That is why the promises to union 
workers are worth a third what the promises are to workers in other 
plans. That isn't right.
  This bill doesn't take any steps to make these failing plans more 
stable. It won't end underfunding. It doesn't make them more solvent 
over time for their children, who are working, by the way, in these 
same companies.
  Families of these union workers are counting on these plans, and 
these workers have put their trust in these trustees to make good on 
their promises. Too many failed, and too many are still failing.
  The truth is, we are in this crisis today because not all managers, 
by the way, did a bad job, but too many did. They dramatically 
overpromised and underdelivered. Will we rely on the same people who 
created this mess to do the same thing to the same workers they have 
already let down?
  It is the workers we worry about the most. I have been on the factory 
floors with these men and women. They are good people. They care deeply 
about providing for themselves and their families. They just want their 
promises kept.
  What our union workers need is for Congress to come up with a long-
term, bipartisan solution now. We will need to start over, Republicans 
and Democrats working together to develop serious bipartisan reforms.
  Again, I pledge to our chairman that Republicans are eager to engage, 
if asked, to try to find this solution--for the first time, if we are 
asked, to find a solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in opposition to the 
bill from Heritage Action for America, Americans for Tax Reform, and 
National Taxpayers Union.

                                  Heritage Action for America,

                                                    July 23, 2019.
     Hon. Kevin Brady,
     Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member Brady: This week, the House is expected 
     to consider H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer 
     Pensions Act (previously known as the Butch-Lewis Act). The 
     bill would essentially bail out over $600 billion in pension 
     liabilities at taxpayer expense without making any reforms to 
     ensure future shortfalls will be

[[Page H7333]]

     avoided. This bill would also set a dangerous precedent for 
     other insolvent pensions, including the $6 trillion in 
     unfunded pension liabilities currently held by state and 
     local governments.
       Politically, this is not an easy issue for many offices. 
     Every member wants to assure their constituents that he or 
     she is doing everything possible to protect their retirement 
     security. But there are four important considerations 
     representatives should take into account before voting on 
     this bill: 1) Existing policies have allowed pensions 
     shortfalls to grow uncontrollably and must be fixed before 
     any other actions are taken; 2) Private sector workers were 
     promised their pensions by their employers and their unions, 
     not by fellow taxpayers or the government; 3) There are 
     alternative ways to ensure workers receive most or all of 
     their pensions without a taxpayer bailout if action is taken 
     quickly; 4) bailouts set dangerous precedents, create moral 
     hazard, and shield bad actors.
       Rather than bailing out multiemployer pensions plans 
     through costly loans that will never be paid back, lawmakers 
     should make them solvent by applying some of the tighter 
     rules that govern single-employer pensions (which were 79% 
     funded in 2015 vs. 43% for multiemployer), increasing PBGC 
     premiums, placing reasonable restrictions on growth 
     assumptions, and giving workers a buyout option.
       Allowing taxpayer dollars to flow to private pensions 
     without even addressing the underlying causes of the 
     shortfall is an irresponsible non-solution to a growing 
     national problem. Heritage Action opposes this legislation 
     and urges all members of Congress to oppose it.
           All the best,

                                                 Garrett Bess,

                                 Director of Government Relations,
     Heritage Action for America.
                                  ____



                                     Americans for Tax Reform,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 2018.
     Re Multiemployer Pension Solvency.

     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Chairman, Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer 
         Pension Plans. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sherrod Brown,
     Co-Chairman, Joint Select Committee on Solvency of 
         Multiemployer Pension Plans, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Co-Chairmen Hatch and Brown: As the Joint Select 
     Committee on Multiemployer Pension Solvency considers 
     proposals to address the multiemployer pension crisis we urge 
     Congress to enact meaningful reform aimed at preventing the 
     situation from reoccurring and protecting taxpayers from 
     future burden. This crisis has created uncertainty for 
     millions of American workers planning their retirement and we 
     appreciate the committee's attention to this issue.
       The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) currently 
     estimates that there are 100 multiemployer pension plans in 
     danger of insolvency if benefits are not reduced. The 
     Heritage Foundation assesses that multiemployer pensions hold 
     roughly $638 billion in unfunded pension promises with only 7 
     years before plans begin collapsing. Insolvency on this 
     widespread scale would likely bankrupt the PBGC, itself 
     underfunded, as it is required by law to insure retirees' 
     benefits up to $12,870 per year.
       While promises were made to participants in multiemployer 
     plans, they were made by private labor unions, not the 
     government and certainly not taxpayers. While the enormity of 
     the problem may make government intervention a political 
     inevitability, taxpayers have no direct responsibility to 
     intervene. Any action considered by the committee should 
     therefore focus on minimizing taxpayers' burden and enacting 
     serious reform to prevent a future crisis from occurring 
     again.
       Any proposal seeking to provide federal assistance to 
     multiemployer pensions should include the following reforms:
       1. Improved Solvency of the PBGC. The first priority should 
     be ensuring the PBGC is capable of providing its intended 
     level of insured benefits to retirees. While the PBGC is not 
     taxpayer funded, it is still an entity of the government and 
     has failed to meet its obligations. Efforts at properly 
     funding the PBGC should focus upon raising standard 
     multiemployer premiums significantly to increase PBGC 
     revenues, requiring termination plans for insolvent plans and 
     introducing a standard PBGC eligibility age for new 
     individuals receiving PBGC benefits. An underfunded PBGC has 
     contributed to this crisis and increases the burden placed on 
     taxpayers, this problem must be addressed.
       2. Accrual of new benefits should freeze while switching 
     employees to 401(k) plans. It is standard practice for 
     single-employer pension funds to immediately freeze accrual 
     of new benefits and switch employees to 401(k) plans when 
     seeking assistance from the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
     Corporation. Multiemployer pensions must be held to the same 
     standard. Despite approaching insolvency, multiemployer 
     pension plans continue to promise benefits several times more 
     generous than the typical employer contribution to 401(k)s. 
     Almost two-thirds of contributions made by multiemployer 
     plans simply cover newly earned benefits, an irrational 
     amount for plans approaching insolvency and seeking taxpayer 
     aid. Halting accruals will free up funds to pay current 
     benefits while new benefits will be more appropriately funded 
     through both employer and employee contributions.
       3. Multiemployer plans must be held to appropriate funding 
     standards. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for pensions 
     taking on greater risk. Multiemployer pensions have been 
     granted special funding rules that allow them to set lower 
     employer contribution levels and rely on higher returns than 
     comparative single-employer plans. For example, while single-
     employer plans are expected to resume full funding in seven 
     years, multiemployer employer plans are given thirty years to 
     payoff unfunded liabilities. Allowing multiemployer plans 
     this substantially larger time period has allowed the funding 
     shortage to snowball. As several participating employers went 
     bankrupt or withdrew over time, the remaining employers were 
     on the hook for guaranteeing the same investment returns to 
     participants of these ``orphaned plans.''
       4. Beneficiaries should be protected within reason. 
     Retirees should be granted protection to their benefits, but 
     that protection must be given within fiscally responsible 
     limits. 401(k) holders don't receive a bailout if their 
     account drops, despite plans being funded by the employees 
     themselves. Retirees under single-employee pensions don't 
     receive unlimited PCGC protection despite more stringent 
     funding rules. Beneficiaries of multiemployer plans shouldn't 
     receive special treatment from the government simply because 
     their union representatives overpromised on returns. Perhaps 
     most importantly, having taxpayers fully cover the loss for 
     retirees will be a signal to employees that their union 
     representatives successfully advocated to protect them, when 
     in reality union leadership overpromised and underfunded 
     their pensions. To avoid a repeat scenario, this situation 
     must be recognized as a pension crisis, not business as usual 
     with a taxpayer safety net.
       As the Joint Committee continues to consider a potential 
     solution, Americans for Tax Reform hopes that the committee 
     will work to lessen the burden on taxpayers and will pursue a 
     solution that prevents a similar pension crisis from 
     happening again.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Onward,
                                               Grover G. Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform.
                                  ____



                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2019.
       National Taxpayers Union urges all Representatives to vote 
     ``NO'' on H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer 
     Pensions Act. This legislation would bail out failing private 
     pension plans with few guardrails for taxpayers and cost at 
     least $67 billion over the next decade. Congress should 
     instead pursue legislation that tackles the multiemployer 
     pension plan (MPP) crisis in a prudent, determined, patient 
     and gradual way.
       NTU has noted before that the MPP crisis, which affects 1.5 
     million Americans, deserves attention from Congress. However, 
     H.R. 397 is a flawed piece of legislation. We wrote last 
     month and in 2018 that, when it comes to MPPs, ``[i]nfusions 
     of cash from the Treasury with few restrictions tend to 
     characterize overreaction rather than corrective action.'' 
     Unfortunately, this is exactly what H.R. 397 does, by 
     providing 30-year loans to failing MPPs with few guardrails 
     for taxpayer dollars. We believe that H.R. 397 will hurt 
     workers in the long run, by allowing plan sponsors to double 
     down on unrealistic promises and assumptions.
       H.R. 397 will also exacerbate the troubled state of the 
     Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which is 
     scheduled to reach insolvency during fiscal year (FY) 2025. 
     Portions of PBGC's operations have appeared on the Government 
     Accountability Office's High Risk List for over a decade, and 
     H.R. 397 fails to introduce real reforms to PBGC.
       Finally, we are alarmed by the Congressional Budget Office 
     (CBO) report that pegged the cost of H.R. 397 at more than 
     $67 billion over the next decade. NTU must add, though, that 
     even this troubling CBO score fails to account for the 30-
     year timeframe on the repayment of loans issued to failing 
     MPPs. It is reasonable to assume that the 30-year costs to 
     taxpayers will be at least tens of billions of dollars more, 
     and even greater if MPPs fail to pay back the full principal 
     and interest on Treasury Department loans.
       We have outlined more prudent reforms before: require PBGC 
     to more fully embrace risk pricing and other management tools 
     to safeguard against liability surprises in the future; 
     include a uniform, significant benefit reduction to show good 
     faith in, the reform effort; and require that loans be 
     collateralized with real-world assets that ensure the loans 
     will be entirely repaid over a term measured in years rather 
     than decades. We believe any of these reforms would present 
     far better options to solving the MPP crisis than H.R. 397.
       NTU strongly urges Representatives to oppose H.R. 397, and 
     instead work towards prudent, determined, patient and gradual 
     solutions to the MPP crisis that avoid putting taxpayers on 
     the hook for multibillion-dollar bailouts.
       Roll call votes on H.R. 397 will be included in our annual 
     Rating of Congress and a ``no'' vote will be considered the 
     pro-taxpayer position.
  Mr. BRADY. I am convinced we can find a solution. This isn't the 
right thing for our workers, but there is a right way to help them. We 
are serious about making that happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H7334]]

  

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been edifying. There has been an opportunity 
here for a full discussion about this impending problem that threatens 
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. This is an acknowledgment of 
the threat that is before us.
  There is one thing that we have in common today. Nobody doubts the 
gravity of the situation that is in front of us. Nobody doubts just how 
serious this is for financial markets going forward if we don't address 
this issue, given the contagion that I referenced earlier that is 
likely to occur in other pension plans across the country if we don't 
address this issue forthwith.
  When I hear people say we want to do this in a spirit of 
bipartisanship, when? For 2 years, we talked about this, and finally, 
there is a plan that the House is about to vote on in the next few 
minutes. I am ever so hopeful and optimistic that we, in fact, are 
going to be able to see the opportunity to pass this legislation and 
get it over to the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the 
bipartisan bill H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions 
Act. This bill would allow pension plans to get back on their feet and 
ensure retirees receive their promised benefits.
  We must act quickly to ensure that Americans who contributed to their 
multiemployer pension plans will not have their financial security at 
risk. That is why I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 397. This bill provides 
financial assistance to financially troubled multiemployer defined 
benefit pension plans covering about 10 million, mostly working-class, 
Americans across the country.
  The financial assistance provide by the bill consists of loans with a 
30-year repayment term. Multiemployer pension plans are collectively 
bargained pension plans covering employees with two or more employers. 
Retirees, workers and their families, who rely on these plans are 
losing benefits earned over a lifetime of work through no fault of 
their own.
  As an example, the Central States Pension Fund in my district has 10 
employers covering more than 1,500 participants. Some of the top 
employers using Central States Pension Fund are YRC Inc., ABF Freights 
Systems, Penske Truck Leasing Co., DHL Express, and Air Express 
International. Without this financial assistance, pensions of truck 
drivers, electricians, ironworkers, bakers, and many more would 
continue to be cut significantly--putting their families' financial 
security and future at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, the growing number of families in our country relying on 
their pension plans is growing and can no longer go unnoticed. We now 
have an opportunity to help these families protect their financial 
security.
  Mr. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that I rise 
in support of strong, bipartisan passage of the Butch Lewis Act.
  The Butch Lewis Act will provide the economic security this body 
ripped out from under millions of hardworking Americans.
  Across our country, 1.3 million workers and retirees face serious and 
significant threat of cuts to their hard earned multiemployer pension 
plans, through no fault of their own. Several of these plans are large 
enough to take down the entire Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, 
threatening the guaranteed security of 10 million Americans.
  I have heard the message time and again from retirees in my district 
and across this nation: they worked for decades to earn these pensions. 
Now they are too old, or their health too unstable, to return to the 
workforce. The stress and anxiety are sapping their will. Some have 
taken their own lives.
  The Butch Lewis Act will provide much needed and long-overdue relief.
  The Butch Lewis Act keeps the promises made to retirees. It 
guarantees pension benefits they have earned into the future. It does 
so by allowing troubled pension plans to borrow the money needed to 
remain solvent in 30-year, low interest loans. The plan will repay.
  Pensions-have afforded millions of middle-class Americans the 
opportunity to enjoy their golden years with economic peace of mind. 
Let us restore this peace with swift and just passage of the Butch 
Lewis Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


        Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. David P. Roe of Tennessee

  Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amend section 4(b)(2) to read as follows:
       (2) Interest rate.--Loans made under subsection (a) shall 
     have an interest rate of 5 percent for each of the first 5 
     years and 9 percent thereafter.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 509, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  One talking point that I have heard a lot from my friends across the 
aisle in support of this bill is that Congress has already bailed out 
our Nation's financial institutions so we should bail out the pension 
plans.
  While I don't agree with that sentiment, if that is the argument, 
then we should treat these bailouts the same. Using this logic, my 
amendment would set the loan interest rates in the bill at 5 percent 
for the first 5 years and 9 percent after that, the same rate given to 
banks under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
  While I wasn't in Congress at the time TARP was passed, the situation 
we are in today, considering a union pension bailout, is the best 
evidence of why we shouldn't have interfered with a bailout of our 
private financial institutions. Nevertheless, that decision was made, 
and now one bailout is being used to justify another. If we believe 
Congress should be in the business of bailing out privately negotiated, 
collectively bargained benefit arrangements of private employers, we 
should do so using the same terms as TARP.
  A key feature of TARP was the Capital Purchase Program, which 
provided capital to finance institutions by purchasing senior preferred 
shares. My amendment would set the interest rate of loans authorized 
under this bill to the same rate that senior preferred stock dividends 
paid under TARP's Capital Purchase Program. If these terms were good 
enough for the TARP bailout, they should be good enough for the bailout 
offered by this bill.
  The majority refuses to accept the outrageous risk associated with 
making loans in these plans. Instead, this bill offers low-interest 
loans to massively underfunded, failing pension plans and allows loan 
principal forgiveness if the plans can't be repaid. This is 
unbelievable. This proves the majority has no belief that the loans 
will ever be repaid and is simply looking to gift hundreds of billions 
of dollars of taxpayer funds to these failing pension plans.
  What about the retirement plans affected during the same time? What 
are we going to bail out next? Are we going to continue having the 
Federal Government come along and throw money at badly managed 
investments?
  If we do make these loans, the government shouldn't just throw the 
money at a problem without some guardrails. With TARP, banks were not 
given low-interest loans over 30 years and told it really doesn't 
matter if they repay them or not, that we will forgive them anyway. In 
fact, those loans were repaid, and the government made money doing 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, I served as chairman of the Health, 
Employment, Labor, and Pension Subcommittee for 6 years. I worked on 
the bill with Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller to help solve 
this problem. It is a huge problem.
  My father was a union member who lost his job 30 years after World 
War II, so I have been down that road with my own family.
  I am willing to work across the aisle. As Mr. Neal stated, I was on 
that committee that didn't do anything. I am willing now to work on 
this.
  This bill, I disagree with him, is not going anywhere. The PBGC 
chairman today said that we should work in a bipartisan way, and I am 
sitting here today telling the gentleman that I am willing to do that. 
I have been willing to for the past 6 years. We did pass that bill back 
about 4 years ago, which will help with the plans, so I am willing to 
do that. This plan is not it.
  I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.

[[Page H7335]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garcia of Illinois). The gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of 
the House of Representatives.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
him for his leadership on behalf of America's working families, and I 
thank him for his role in bringing this important legislation to the 
floor.
  I thank Chairman Neal as well for his chairmanship of the Ways and 
Means Committee, so essential in our being able today to come to 
respect the work of America's workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation and in opposition 
to the amendment. Again, this is about the financial security and 
future of America's workers.
  Our House Democratic majority was elected to fight for the people. 
Today, as we pass the Butch Lewis bill that is bipartisan, that has 
bipartisan support, that is exactly what we are doing.
  The Butch Lewis Act delivers justice for 1.3 million workers and 
retirees facing devastating cuts to pensions earned over a lifetime of 
work. It protects the financial security of families, ensuring workers 
have the benefits they have earned and need to provide for spouses, 
children, and grandchildren. It honors the sacred pension promise in 
America, that if you work hard, you deserve the dignity of a secure 
retirement.
  Sadly, years of relentless special interest agendas have put that 
promise in peril. Unchecked recklessness on Wall Street ignited a 
financial meltdown that dealt a devastating blow to multiemployer 
pension plans while dangerous deregulation and relentless attacks 
against unions have eaten away at these plans' health.
  If we do not act, the pensions of many workers and retirees will be 
cut to the bone, and the financial security and futures of their 
families and communities will be thrown into jeopardy.
  Workers are the backbone of our Nation, and we cannot accept a single 
penny to be cut from their pensions. Congress has a responsibility to 
do right by hardworking Americans.

  We have a responsibility to Americans like Sam, a retired coal miner 
from southwest Virginia who has second-stage black lung and relies on a 
$475 a month pension to pay for his healthcare because he has been 
denied Federal black lung benefits.
  We have a responsibility to Americans like Kenneth from Wisconsin, 
who needs his pension to provide for his five children, nine grandkids, 
and, until recently, his beloved wife, Beverly, who he just lost to 
cancer. Yet, his pension faces a 55 percent cut.
  We have a responsibility to Americans like Rita Lewis, who is here 
with us today, wife to Butch Lewis, this bill's namesake, who so 
heroically fought until his death to protect pensions, including Rita's 
survivor benefits.
  As Rita testified before Congress: ``This pension was not a gift. He 
worked hard for every penny of that pension. He gave up wages and 
vacation pay and other benefits . . . so I would be taken care of if 
something happened to him.''
  Now that pension risks being slashed to the core.
  Workers, retirees, and survivors like Sam, Kenneth, and Rita are 
forgoing much-needed medicines, or working into their eighties for more 
income, and are being robbed of their benefits that they need to help 
out their families.
  Not Rita. She is not working into her eighties.
  We must act now. We will swiftly pass this bill to honor workers' 
dignity, support their families, and protect their futures.
  We must always remember that the middle class is the backbone of our 
democracy, and our workers are the strength of that middle class. In 
fact, I do believe that the middle class has a union label on it.
  In the coming months, the House will continue to build on this 
progress, passing future legislation on behalf of working families. Our 
majority is for the people, and we will work relentlessly to restore a 
government that works for the people's interest, not the special 
interests.
  I urge a strong bipartisan vote to protect the pensions of workers 
and retirees, and I urge Senator McConnell to immediately take up this 
bill so that we can send it to the President's desk and give comfort to 
so many families in America.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The intent of 
this bill is to keep loan interest rates as low as possible for two 
reasons, to get financially distressed plans back on their feet and to 
maximize the chance of full repayment of the loan.
  CBO estimates that, under the provisions of the bill, the cost of the 
loans, after some defaults, will cost less than $60 billion over 30 
years, much less than the hundreds of billions of dollars if we do 
nothing.
  This bill specifies an interest rate to be around the 30-year U.S. 
Treasury securities rate with a 20 basis-point increase to cover costs 
of administration. For those plans that elect to repay the loan 
principal on an accelerated schedule, there is an incentive of a 50 
basis-point reduction in the interest rate.
  The bottom line here is that this is not a program from which the 
Federal Government intends to make a profit.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and many employer 
organizations have not endorsed the bill. However, they did send a 
letter last year that said: ``The financial and demographic 
circumstances of certain plans will not allow them to survive without 
responsible financial assistance. Consequently, we recommend long-term, 
low-interest loans that will protect taxpayers from financial 
liability.''
  These business groups recognize that doing nothing is more expensive 
to taxpayers than the provisions of this bill and a low-interest loan.

                              {time}  1830

  The amendment before us mandates the interest rate to be 5 percent 
for the first 5 years and 9 percent thereafter. This is not a low-
interest loan in today's environment where a 30-year Treasury security 
rate is 2.6 percent.
  Raising the interest rates to the levels prescribed by my friend from 
Tennessee would entirely subvert the loan program. Nobody would apply, 
and those who did apply would have to represent an earnings rate that 
would not be realistic.
  This amendment would increase loan defaults, and its effect, whether 
intended or not, would doom the loan program before it starts. 
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that we reject the amendment.
  Before I yield back, I want to say that the gentleman from Tennessee 
and I disagree on this amendment and the underlying bill, but I 
appreciate his leadership and expertise. We served on the Joint Select 
Committee last year, and we agree that something needs to be done 
because we have a crisis. So I look forward to working with him and his 
colleague from Tennessee, the Chair of the Senate Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee, Mr. Alexander, as this process moves 
forward.
  Now, I want to remind everybody, if we do nothing, over a million 
hardworking Americans will lose their pensions, businesses will go 
bankrupt, and the Federal Government will unnecessarily spend hundreds 
of billions of dollars.
  This amendment will not help. It will actually make matters worse, 
and, therefore, we should defeat the amendment and then pass the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.

[[Page H7336]]

  

                          ____________________